-
Announcement
-
Simtropolis Returns! 05/26/2026
See here for details about our site recovery efforts.
-
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'main battery armament'.
Found 1 result
-
Chapter 17: The Second Generation
Dreadnought posted a City Journal entry in IMPERIAL DOCKYARDS: CUXHAVEN
Here we see the crew of SMS Von der Tann taking aboard provisions in preparation for sailing. In the early 1900’s this was a common sight in Imperial naval bases. Shore-based bakeries would provide fresh bread daily to the naval barracks where the crews were billeted when in port, and were also tasked with sending ships to sea with a fresh-baked supply. Admittedly, the delivery and handling systems were a bit primitive in those days, but German “Brown Bread” (sometimes called “Black Bread”) was – and still is -- quite tasty, nonetheless. IMPERIAL DOCKYARDS: CUXHAVEN BY: Dreadnought & AP Chapter 17: THE SECOND GENERATION HMS Indefatigable lying at anchor – circa 1912. Almost all British battlecruisers had a big, ungainly, look to them – mostly because they had such a high freeboard. This kept them “dry” in rough weather, but made them a bigger target. The superstructure on the first two battlecruiser classes were tall and “blocky”. Here, you can see quite clearly where the new ships were “stretched” amidships, made obvious by the distance between the first and third funnels. Before SMS Von der Tann’s design particulars had even been finalized, the British were moving ahead with their building plans. First Sea Lord Jackie Fisher had blind-sided the naval world with the Invincible Class “large cruisers” (not officially battlecruisers until 1911). And though they were among the most powerful warships afloat, Fisher was not quite satisfied. “Battlecruiser mania” had not yet taken hold of the Admiral’s thought processes and he was still flirting with the concept of the “fast battleship”. As far back as 1905, Fisher had started an inter-navy discussion with the purpose of developing a single capital ship that would incorporate the features of both HMS Dreadnought and HMS Invincible. Based on the discussions, the Department of Naval Construction (DNC) had prepared a design study featuring a faster version of HMS Dreadnought with a displacement of 22,500 tons. While the study was being prepared, Fisher established a “Fusion Committee” from members of the Admiralty -- with the notion he could better “control” the decision-making process. But – to Fisher’s utter dismay – the Admiralty Committee was determined to work within the budgeted Naval Estimates. They took one look at the design sketches and decided a heavy battleship with a cruiser’s speed would be too costly for a single ship. To build such an expensive ship would reduce the number of ships that could be built. Considering the increasing naval arms race with Germany, and Britain’s naval commitments to the Empire – the committee chose quantity over quality. Fisher’s “fusion battleship” would have to wait. In early 1906, the Liberal government under H.H. Asquith came to power and implemented a more stringent economic policy, so the Admiralty postponed discussion of future battlecruisers. Fisher found the delay unbearable. By surprising everyone with the Invincible, he had gotten ahead of the foreign navies – now he saw that advantage slipping away. In November, Fisher came back with a new proposal for a less expensive battlecruiser, which met with some favor in the Admiralty Committee. However, Parliamentary pressure deferred any decision to build a new class of battlecruisers until the navy estimates of 1908-1909 – but they did agree to a compromise. Since Fisher was in a hurry to add more battlecruisers to the fleet before other nations could catch-up – he agreed to a single new ship -- an “improved” Invincible design – to be called HMS Indefatigable. HMS Indefatigable: 18,800 tons – 25 knots – 8x12-inch guns – 16x4-inch guns – 2x17.7-inch torpedo tubes – belt armor 4-6 inches – deck armor 1.5-2.5 inches – turret armor 7 inches. It can be seen the Indefatigable Class were not graceful ships. Mostly flush-decked, with a small fantail deck, they resembled nothing so much as a great, floating, “flatiron”. The forward and aft superstructures were tall and ungainly, and the heavy tripod masts towering over all would make excellent aiming points for German rangefinders. This superbly detailed model is courtesy of @Barroco Hispano. This expedient would keep Britain’s lead in battlecruisers secure, and worked well, as a reluctant Parliament was coaxed into agreement. A further “policy drive” encouraged the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand to pay for two more ships. (They were supposed to be stationed in Australian waters for protection – but would be under Royal Navy orders in time of war. A bit of “slight-of-hand” on the part of the Admiralty.) HMS Indefatigable wound up being the cheapest capital ship built in the 20th Century, which reassured the British and Dominion taxpayers their money had been well spent. But perception is not always reality. Claiming Indefatigable’s design was “improved” was a considerable overstatement – if not an outright lie. The low cost was achieved by “stretching” the design of Invincible to allow wider cross-deck firing arcs – thus providing more effective fire on either beam of the new ship. The new design was justified by the speed with which it was prepared and its low cost – but repeating all the original mistakes in a “second generation” was inexcusable. In this image, you see HMS Invincible in the foreground and HMS Indefatigable behind her. Indefatigable was designed as a “stretched” version of Invincible. The most easily noticed difference is in the midships area. Invincible’s “P” and “Q” turrets (port and starboard “wing turrets”) are extremely “crowded”, with poor firing arcs, and no room for cross-deck firing. This design fault was corrected in the Indefatigable Class by “stretching” the hull and making improvements to reduce the deck clutter. This view, and the one below, will allow you to better compare the shape and positioning of the various deck components – superstructure elements, funnels, and gun turrets. Lord Fisher’s poor judgment was apparent as early as 1908, when it became known the Germans were building their own battlecruisers – thus exposing the faulty logic in the “battlecruiser concept”. Now British battlecruisers would face opponents of equal speed and firepower and it became a matter of withstanding the destructive power of German 11-inch and 12-inch rifles. And Fisher had lobbied the British Press so effectively to obtain his battlecruisers, that he could not now admit they were anything less than superior to their opponents. In all truth, Von der Tann was equal in firepower and far superior in her armor, sub-division, and protective arrangements. But Fisher’s own propaganda had trapped him. Flawed though they might be, they were commissioned into the Royal Navy – HMS Indefatigable 1911 – HMS New Zealand 1912 – and HMAS Australia in 1913. This is a close-up of HMS Indefatigable showing the intricate detailing of this model. Every visible detail has been faithfully recreated. One example is the large metal square visible below “P” turret. The gun house sits atop the armored barbette which extends down into the hull of the ship to the handling rooms and their adjacent shell room and powder magazines. The battlecruiser’s 6-inch belt armor only reached two or three feet above the waterline – which would leave the actual barbette armor dangerously close to the thin, exterior hull plating. The “square” is, in fact, additional armor plating added to the design to protect the barbette beneath the wing turret. The Kaiserliche Marine also provided their wing turrets additional protection, but theirs was designed into the hull and not visible. THE MOLTKE CLASS BATTLECRUISERS SMS Moltke – a “second generation” Imperial battlecruiser at sea – circa 1912 or 1913 – in a very accurate artist’s rendering. You can see the low and graceful appearance of the German battlecruiser compared to her British contemporaries. Even the raised forecastle deck forward is considerably lower. The superstructure follows the German “minimalist” pattern, and the artist even captured the vast clouds of smoke issuing from the funnels. The design of “Grosse Kreuzer G – 1908” started in April of 1907, and thanks to the excellent design parameters developed for Von der Tann, things moved along smoothly. Unlike British naval constructors, German architects stuck to their pattern of making significant improvements to previous designs. The Reichstag granted a budget of 44.1 million Marks – a generous increase on Von der Tann’s 36.7 million Mark price tag. The new cruisers would be bigger, better armed, and better protected. There are varying opinions as to whether Moltke was a “second generation” battlecruiser – or merely the “second ship” of the “first generation” of Imperial battlecruisers. Some analysts consider Von der Tann, Moltke, Goeben, and Seydlitz to be of a single class. And there are, indeed, significant similarities between the four ships. But the four were laid down in successive years beginning in 1908 and ending with Seydlitz in 1911. Each ship was an altered design – a new turret here, a new hull form there, and a new deck arrangement on the other one. While three of the four ships looked nearly identical – Von der Tann did not. All four ships were deserving of their reputation for speed – but not all of them were equal to the fastest among them. Not all of them had the same number of big guns. I could go on and on with “what they were not” – but “what they were” is far more important. Each battlecruiser was an improvement upon the preceding design, so each new ship was a bit bigger, a bit faster, and a bit better armored than the last one. If you take Von der Tann and compare her to the fourth ship (Seydlitz) the difference is both visible and invisible. Seydlitz had been so far improved, she was no longer in a class with Von der Tann. And Seydlitz would prove in battle just how much those improvements mattered. So – my theory is that Moltke is “second generation”. The first question raised by the Naval High Command was whether or not to increase the gun caliber. All the British battlecruisers were armed with 12-inch guns, and the recent design of the Helgoland Class dreadnought battleships mounted 12-inch rifles. It only seemed logical to make the jump. However, with the British continuing to build more and more battlecruisers, Tirpitz reasoned – tactically -- it would be wiser to add more guns rather than increasing the caliber. More guns allowed for the possibility of splitting a ship’s fire between two targets. He countered with the suggestion of an additional twin main battery turret for the new cruiser, on the theory the Reichsmarineamt still considered the 11-inch rifle sufficient to engage even battleships. Eventually, a concept design for a cruiser of approximately 22,000 tons with five twin turrets and capable of 24.5 knots was decided on, and the Kaiser approved it on 28 May 1907. From that point, the design process began to bog down, largely due to other design work already in progress, and the many changes gradually worked into the new cruiser. In May 1908 – to reduce the work load in the design department and streamline the building time in the yards – Tirpitz decided “Grosse Kreuzer G-1908” and “Grosse Kreuzer H-1909” would have to be identical twins. Bids were solicited from the construction yards, and when Blohm & Voss submitted the lowest bid, they received contracts for both cruisers. This unusual move ensured both battlecruisers would be built to the same specifications. NOTE: In Chapter 15 – “Anatomy Of A Battlecruiser” – I went into great detail regarding the design and construction of the Imperial battlecruisers, and threw a truckload of numbers at you. For the most part, each succeeding battlecruiser class will have been constructed using the same methods – and largely the same materials. Rather than bore you with repetition, I will stick to the basics and only mention changes or modifications where significant. I hope that will be more enjoyable. Profile and deck plan of “Grosse Kreuzer G” – soon to be christened SMS Moltke. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS The contract for “Grosse Kreuzer G” was awarded to Blohm & Voss Dockyards, Hamburg, on 17 September 1908, and her keel was laid on 7 December. She would be launched sixteen months later, on 7 April 1910. The main design features of the new cruiser were significantly superior to the previous Von der Tann Class. At 22,979 tons, her displacement was considerably increased – almost 3,600 tons heavier than Von der Tann and HMS Indefatigable. The new cruiser’s hull was longer, at 612 feet, with finer hull lines at both ends, and somewhat broader in the beam. The hull was constructed of transverse and longitudinal framing, and plated with Siemens-Martin “mild steel” for flexibility and resilience. There were fifteen watertight compartments on six deck levels, with a double bottom running 78% of her length. The double bottom and extensive use of internal compartmentalization between the watertight transverse bulkheads contributed significantly to her underwater protection -- slowing flooding and confining it to a smaller area. Though not in the original plans, bilge keels were later fitted to improve stability. SMS Moltke (“Grosse Kreuzer G”) at anchor in Cuxhaven’s Inner Basin. Here you can see the longer hull form with the clean lines forward and the fine, tapered, hull form aft. This also shows the well balanced and careful layout of the decks. To starboard, a Sophia Class paddle tug is passing with a “double tow” of lighters filled with general ship’s stores. The beautiful model of SMS Moltke, the paddle tug Sophia, and the lighters are courtesy of the hard-working and talented @AP. All interior decks were steel plated and covered with linoleum, while exterior (“weather”) decks were steel plated and covered with 2.5 inches of teak planking. Forward of “A” turret, the forecastle had a gentle, sloping, rise of approximately 22 feet above the waterline at the stem. Aft of “A” turret, the deck leveled off and was flush all the way to the aft main gun turrets. The ship’s overall freeboard had been increased by three feet over that of Von der Tann in an effort to reduce the amount of water taken over the decks in heavy weather. The additional rise at the stem and an increased “flare” of the bow at deck level, was designed to throw water away from the bow. In an unusual move, the new cruiser’s stem was cut nearly vertical and the customary ram bow was all but eliminated. (This was an attempt to improve her sluggish helm response at low speed.) In order to accommodate the aft main gun turrets, the fantail was lowered by one deck level. The largely flush-deck configuration was quite appealing and gave her a long, sleek, appearance. The deck layout is pretty much the same pattern as Von der Tann. Behind “A” turret was the forward superstructure housing the Navigation Bridge, the forward armored Conning Tower, a Chart Room, a pair of searchlight platforms, the forward pole mast, and the Flag Bridge. The forward funnel was built into the rear of this structure. The funnels on this class were a bit larger in circumference, making them look squat and heavy. This was an easy identification feature not found on other cruisers. The fore funnel had a ten-foot “boot cap” installed soon after trials to keep smoke out of the bridge areas. Air intakes for the boiler rooms were found at the rear base of the funnel. Like Von der Tann another funnel housing with air intakes and boat derricks was located amidships between “B” and “E” wing turrets. This is an excellent view of the upper decks of SMS Moltke. The flush Superstructure Deck extends from the bow all the way aft to the “C” turret barbette mounting. This increased the freeboard over 75% of the ship, keeping the decks relatively “dry” in heavy weather. It was policy in the Kaiserliche Marine to assign letters to the main gun turrets in a clockwise fashion. On the bow is “A” turret – starboard wing turret is “B” – superfiring turret aft is “C” – aft turret is “D” – and the port wing turret is “E”. The aft superstructure block included the secondary conning tower, a pair of searchlight platforms (each with two searchlights) stepped against the after mast, and air intakes around the base. Beyond that were two main battery turrets – “C” turret superfiring over “D” turret. This was a significant improvement over Von der Tann – not only adding two more 11-inch guns, but using superfiring turrets in the Kaiserliche Marine for the first time. Elaborate firing tests were run to ensure the blast over-pressure of the top turret would not interfere with the operation of the lower guns. (This was a problem both the Royal Navy and the Kaiserliche Marine had feared for many years, but the Germans found an adequate solution first.) The same machinery layout below decks as Von der Tann, allowed the funnels and superstructure groups to be placed well clear of the main battery firing arcs. Interestingly enough, the new design had originally contemplated “lattice masts”, similar to those found aboard U.S. Navy ships, but they had never been tested on a German warship, and Tirpitz feared they might be too heavy and prone to battle damage. Close-up of the innovative aft superfiring main battery turrets. The Austrians were the first naval power to mount superfiring turrets on a capital ship – but the Germans jumped ahead of the Royal Navy in their use. Note – the superfiring “C” turret is mounted on the superstructure deck, while the fantail was lowered by one deck level to accommodate “D” turret. The ship’s electrical needs were handled by six turbo-generators totaling 1,500kw output at 225 volts. As a precaution against battle damage, the generators were divided between four dynamo rooms – one each to port and starboard of the forward engine room, and two more on the centreline, all on the upper platform deck. The new ship retained Von der Tann’s extensive drainage and pumping system, with three high-capacity centrifugal pumps (two steam driven – one electrical) and several portable, electric “leak” pumps. In an emergency, the condenser pumps could also be connected to the drainage system. The cruiser was to be equipped with two wireless transmitters, three receivers, and as many antennas, and prior to 1914, an additional transmitter/receiver was installed in the forward conning tower. “Grosse Kreuzer G” would ship a crew of 43 officers and 1,010 men. PROPULSION PLANT ”Grosse Kreuzer G”, with nearly 4,000 tons extra weight, was designed with a more powerful propulsion system to compensate. She was equipped with twenty-four Schulz-Thornycroft, water-tube boilers built to a modified design in the Blohm & Voss Boiler Works. Specially developed for the Kaiserliche Marine, the double-ended, coal-fired boilers were built larger, out of weight-saving materials, with four water drums and two steam drums -- delivering high-pressure steam with lower coal consumption. They were arranged in eight separate boiler rooms – four ahead of the “B” turret barbettes – and four aft -- divided by longitudinal bulkheads. Due to problems with low quality coal, “tar oil” sprayers were installed in all boilers beginning in 1916. Maximum bunker capacity was 3,100 tons of coal, providing an operating radius of 4,120 miles at 14 knots. “Grosse Kreuzer G” was designed for 52,000shp, providing 25.5 knots. The boilers fed four sets of Parsons Steam Turbines manufactured by the Blohm & Voss Engine Works and arranged in the same manner as Von der Tann’s. The forward and aft engine rooms were divided along the centreline by a longitudinal bulkhead. In a radical departure from Von der Tann, two rudders were fitted, “in tandem”, along the centreline – a feature that would become standard on battlecruisers. This novel arrangement worked well enough at moderate to high speeds. She was quick to answer the helm, with a tight turning radius. But at low speeds or in shallow water, she was extremely difficult to steer. Each rudder was driven by an auxiliary steam steering engine. In the event of damage, both rudders could be coupled to a single engine, or manually operated. SHIP’S ARMAMENT MAIN BATTERY The chosen main battery armament of “Grosse Kreuzer G” was the Krupp 11-inch SK-L/50 (QF) high-velocity gun. The gun came into service in 1911 with an increased barrel length of 50 calibers – specifically designed to increase the velocity and accuracy of the previous SK-L/45 gun. The gun houses (turrets) only allowed a +13.5 degree elevation, which limited the range to approximately 17,800 yards – somewhat shorter than Von der Tann’s gun range. (In a 1916 refit the turrets were modified and the range increased to 20,900 yards.) In reality, the prevailing visibility conditions in the North Sea meant battle ranges varied between six to eight miles (on a good day) – usually within the maximum range of the guns. The unusually large -8.0 degree depression meant German ships could continue accurate fire on the “up-roll”. (It also made swabbing out the barrels much easier.) Mounted in twin turrets, the guns were well placed: “A” turret (Albert) forward on the forecastle deck – “B” turret (Berta) in the starboard “forward wing” position – the aft superfiring turret “C” (Caesar), and “D” turret (David), aft on the fantail deck, with “E” turret (Emil) in the port “aft wing” position. By carefully positioning the turrets and superstructure, and keeping the “deck clutter” to an absolute minimum, the architects enabled her to “cross-deck fire” with the midships “wing turrets” on an impressive arc of about 75 degrees. This shot provides an excellent view of the midships wing turret arrangements. Each wing turret has a wide arc of fire on the broadside beam, with a reasonable firing arc in the cross-deck mode. A new gun house (turret) design was developed for the new gun tube – the Drh-L-C/1908 – which had several advantages over previous designs. The open “spotting hood” in the roof was discontinued – thus preventing blast over-pressure effects inside the turret, and allowing the use of superfiring turrets. An apparatus was also installed coupling the gun barrels together for elevation and aiming. The gun houses were electrically trained, with an electrohydraulic elevating system for the gun tubes. The SK-L/50 gun could fire a 666-lb armor-piercing shell at the rate of 3 rounds per minute. The shell was propelled by a “fore charge” of 58 lbs in a double silk bag – and a main charge of 175 lbs in a brass case. The brass case had two advantages; the Krupp guns used a horizontal “sliding wedge breech” sealed by the rear rim of the shell casing (obturator seal) – and “cased” charges were far less likely to burn or explode in an accident. The magazines stored a total of 840 rounds -- 150 rounds per wing turret and 170 rounds for the others. Fire Control “ranging and spotting” was handled from the fore or aft conning towers, whose upper floors housed the Fire Control Party operating Zeiss 9-foot stereoscopic rangefinders mounted on the roof. Additional rangefinders were installed in various locations, and after 1914, a crow’s nest Fire Control position and rangefinder was added to the foremast. The control stations were connected to a Central Gunnery Control situated beneath the protective armored deck. Here, the ship’s Fire Control Team received data from the remote stations, calculated target information, and issued gun-laying orders to the “Turret Captains” via voice pipes, telephones, or electro-mechanical “repeaters”. The Chief Gunnery Officer handled range corrections and controlled the actual firing of the turrets from the forward conning tower. (See Chapter 14 for full fire control details.) SECONDARY BATTERY ”Grosse Kreuzer G” continued the pattern of carrying a strong secondary battery. The British had mixed opinions about carrying a secondary battery on capital ships, but the Germans had no such qualms. The Reichsmarineamt had settled on the 5.9-inch gun after the Battle Of Tsushima – and they never looked back. The medium caliber gun was an excellent complimentary weapon to the 11-inch main gun, and at the closer battle ranges in the North Sea, it could be a very effective weapon. Like Von der Tann, twelve 5.9-inch SK-L/45 (QF) high velocity, guns were mounted in MPL-C/06 casemates, six amidships on either beam. Unlike Von der Tann, the flush-decked arrangement of the new cruiser placed the Battery Deck one level higher than normal, and the guns could be worked quite well in heavy seas. As originally installed, they had a range of 13,500 yards, but after the action at Dogger Bank they were altered to allow a range of 16,800 yards. The gun crew of eight men could fire a 100-lb shell in a brass cartridge case, at a sustained rate of 5 to 7 shells per minute. To speed up the rate of fire, each casemate gun had its’ own electric ammunition hoist. Magazine capacity allowed for 50 armor-piercing shells, and 100 head-fused high explosive rounds per gun. TERTIARY BATTERY For torpedo boat defense, twelve 3.5-inch SK-L/45 (QF) high-velocity guns were provided in the original design. But after the Battle Of Dogger Bank in 1915, it was realized these light guns were virtually useless against modern destroyers, and they were gradually removed. It was of no consequence because the 5.9-inch guns were more than adequate for the job. TORPEDO ARMAMENT As was customary for the time period, all German capital ships carried a strong torpedo armament. “Grosse Kreuzer G” was fitted with four submerged 20-inch torpedo tubes. They were arranged in the standard pattern -- one fore and aft, and one on each beam. Eleven torpedoes were carried. ARMOR To say German capital ships of the period were comprehensively armored would be quite correct – but grossly understated. The Imperial Construction Department spent more time designing the armor layout than they did for the ship as a whole. The very first step was the consideration of what you were armoring against – in this case, the British 12-inch Mark X/45 gun. “Grosse Kreuzer G” would have to be sufficiently armored to withstand battle damage from these guns and emerge victorious (or at least afloat and under her own power). Taking that as a starting point, they were then able to decide which areas of the ship were essential to survival of the vessel as a fighting unit. The battlecruiser was, in the end, a floating, self-propelled, gun platform – designed solely to bring the guns into action against the enemy. (Over simplified – but true.) German designers, in their quest to build a combat-effective battlecruiser (in essence, a “fast battleship”), had to strike a delicate balance between guns, armor, and speed. They managed this balancing act by fine-tuning the armor suite through a very tedious design process of placing armor – then calculating the weight and calculating the potential speed. Depending upon the results, they added armor, or removed armor, or thinned an inch here or a half-inch there. Eventually, they arrived at a very complicated and comprehensive layout compatible with the gun and speed requirements. Imperial German capital ships were consistently built with extensive and thick armor suites when compared to other navies. The improvement of “Grosse Kreuzer G’s” armor suite over Von der Tann’s was simple – there was more of it – and thicker! (I’m not going to go into the intricate details – take off a half-inch here, add an inch there – I did all that in Chapter 15.) The new battlecruiser was armored throughout with Krupp Cemented Armor, face hardened with nickel steel, and backed with 2 inches of Teak to prevent spalling. The “protective armored deck”, unlike most warships, extended from stem to stern. The horizontal parts varied between 1.5 inches and 3.5 inches -- the sloping sides were 2 inches, connected to the lower end of the main belt armor. The Main Belt Armor amidships was 11 inches, with 4 inches extending to the bow and stern. The Citadel armor (the next level up) ran from barbette to barbette with 8 inches of armor – increasing to 9 inches to give added protection in the area of the “wing turrets”. The Casemate armor (the final layer reaching the deck level) ran from barbette to barbette and was 5.9 inches thick. The main battery turrets were also protected with Krupp Cemented Nickel Steel armor – turret faces 9.2 inches – sides and back 7.3 inches – roof 3.9 inches. The forward conning tower was protected by 14-inch armor -- the aft conning tower had 8 inches. The armor scheme was thicker and better arranged and was, by itself, a masterful achievement – but there was more. The underwater protection of “Grosse Kreuzer G” was the most extensive yet designed into a battlecruiser. Fourteen transverse bulkheads divided the ship into fifteen vertical watertight compartments. The protective armored deck (at the waterline) further divided each compartment horizontally – effectively creating thirty watertight compartments – half above the waterline, and half below. Between the transverse bulkheads -- within each of those “armored, watertight boxes” -- were numerous subdivisions. These were lighter steel bulkheads (in a house, you would call them “walls”) forming individual compartments (rooms) throughout the hull – Damage Control Center, Boatswain’s Store, Sail Locker, Capstan Engine Room, etc, etc. Each compartment could be sealed against flooding with watertight doors. In effect – the interior of the hull was a labyrinth of passageways, small compartments, and watertight doors – a “honeycomb” designed to keep the ship afloat in the event of damage. There were exceptions to the system, usually in the machinery spaces – boiler rooms and engine rooms – where the compartments were large, and often two or three decks in height. But “Grosse Kreuzer G” had well over 80 watertight compartments in her design – considerably more than most foreign warships – and she would be able to withstand a great deal of damage before sinking. (See Chapter 13 for difficulty sinking Blucher.) Following Von der Tann’s example, the new cruiser was given a built-in, armored torpedo bulkhead. (See Chapter 15 for details.) This was still considered a new design innovation and was not at all common in foreign navies. But German designers knew it was much easier to repair a damaged ship than to build a replacement. “Survivability” was a key factor in all their decisions. Another protective measure in all Imperial warships was the common coal bunker. Like Von der Tann, the new battlecruiser used outboard hull spaces as coal bunkers – running the length of the hull between the fore and aft turret barbettes. But the few extra feet designed into her beam made it a much-improved scheme. The upper bunkers began in the “Zwischendeck” (between decks) and formed a horizontal protective layer about eight feet deep. They began about fifteen feet from the centreline and extended outboard to the “citadel” armor belt of the hull – almost covering the spaces over the boiler and engine rooms. The upper bunkers then slanted down one more deck level, with a depth of ten feet, to the top of the sloping protective armored deck. Below the armored deck the lower coal bunkers extended down to the double bottom, just outboard of the torpedo bulkhead, with a width of six feet. In this way, enemy shells plunging into the decks and superstructure would have to penetrate both the battery deck and the coal-filled “Zwischendeck” before they could reach the boiler or engine spaces. The coal in the lower bunkers would be burned first, since they were underwater and less likely to be hit – leaving the upper coal bunkers to protect the overhead and outboard areas of the machinery spaces. Taken at face value, coal was far cheaper than Krupp steel, and could absorb more destructive energy than a thick armor plate. Though other navies used coal bunkers as added protection, none were as extensive or comprehensive as those found on German capital ships. “Grosse Kreuzer G” was, indeed, an improvement over Von der Tann, but it was not just more armor and thicker armor jotted down in a long list of numbers – she was so much more than that. She was a carefully conceived, homogeneous and interwoven machine designed to quickly bring her guns into battle and, above all, survive the fight. Guns were, obviously, important – but they were of little use if the ship could not survive long enough to put them to good use. During the First World War, German capital ships earned a reputation for being lethal in combat and almost impossible to sink – a feature that remained with them until the end of the Dreadnought Era, some thirty years later. On 7 April 1910, “Grosse Kreuzer G” was christened SMS Moltke – in honor of Generalfeldmarschall Helmuth Graf von Moltke. (Often referred to as “Moltke The Elder”.) He entered the Prussian Army at age 22 and served the Kingdom for fifty years, and the German Empire for another seventeen years, before retiring in 1888. He served briefly with the Danish Army and the Ottoman Army in Egypt, and commanded during the Second Schleswig War, the Austro-Prussian War, and the Franco-Prussian War. He served with distinction as the Chief of the Great General Staff for the Prussian and Imperial armies for thirty years and pioneered the military use of railways in Europe. He has been described as...”the embodiment of Prussian military organization and tactical genius.” As a “side-note” of some interest – “Moltke The Elder” retired the same year Wilhelm II ascended the throne, and his organizational skills delivered to Wilhelm the finest army in all of Europe – not a small achievement. In 1906, his nephew, Graf Helmuth Johannes Ludwig von Moltke (“Moltke The Younger”), succeeded Graf Alfred Von Schlieffen as Chief of the Great General Staff and was in command of the Imperial armies in August 1914. As SMS Moltke slid down the Blohm & Voss slipway and into the waters of the Elbe, she had an illustrious namesake to live up to – but history would prove her equal to the challenge. NEXT TIME…… MOLTKE AT WAR MANY THANKS to @Barroco Hispano for his generosity in providing the beautiful warship models. SPECIAL THANKS to my collaborating partner, @AP, for volunteering his considerable talents, time, and vivid imagination. I am eternally indebted to him. If you enjoyed anything – please punch the “like” button so WE will know. A comment would be even more informative. Comments and critiques requested and gratefully accepted. All questions answered promptly to the best of our ability. THANK YOU for your visit! You may wish to visit these CJ’s as well…… SERIES I: IMPERIAL DOCKYARDS: WILHELMSHAVEN SERIES II: IMPERIAL DOCKYARDS: CUXHAVEN Appearing – Work In Publication SERIES III: IMPERIAL DOCKYARDS: BREMERHAVEN Appearing -- ??? And please feel free to drop in at… THE SIMTROPOLIS SHIPYARD https://community.simtropolis.com/forums/topic/761469-simtropolis-shipyard/?tab=comments#comment-1766496- 2 Comments
-
- 7
-
-
- battlecruisers
- sms moltke
- (and 9 more)
