Comments by "Sar Jim" (@sarjim4381) on "H-40 through H-44 - Guide 111 (NB)" video.

The original 37mm/C30 gun was a pretty terrible antiaircraft weapon. It was the only weapon of its size that was single shot and hand loaded. The practical ROF was no more than 30 RPM, totally inadequate for antiaircraft fire. The mounting was hand operated and very slow to train and elevate. The M42 was a far superior gun, fully automatic and fed from a five round clip, much like the 20mm, but it wasn't available until 1944. The M43 gun was the first with the option of a power twin mounting but changed the clip to an inferior 8 round strip loading, lowering the practical ROF to 180 RPM compared to 250 RPM for the M42. Unfortunately for the Germans, the development of single and double wet mounts of the 37mm M42 and quad mount 20mm guns gave Doenitz false hope that U Boats so armed could successfully fight it out on the surface against allied aircraft and transit the Bay of Biscay safely. The first couple boats armed with these weapons did have some success as at least five Coastal Command aircraft were lost flying into this unexpected wall of flak. Coastal Command was quickly able to work out the types and locations of the weapons through photo reconnaissance flights. The countermeasure was to always attack in groups of three and from the bow if possible, since no boat had more than a single 20 mm mounted forward. Even the few U-Flak boats armed with two quad 20's and two twin M42's mounted fore and aft were not able to fight off the swarms of Coastal Command aircraft that set upon surfaced U-Boats from mid-1943 on. The real answer was a Dutch invention, the schnorkel, so the boats never had to come to the surface at all.
142
Good morning/afternoon, fellow naval history lovers.
72
@rickmoreno6858 While the snorkel had some problems, most were solved by early 1944. Engineers learned how to run the diesels with a minimum of smoke, and the fuel quality was improved so combustion was more complete. Very few uboats were discovered because of exhaust smoke. A bigger problem was when allied radar was improves os it could detect a snorkel. That was solved late in the war with a coating of Turnmatte, radar absorbent materiel that was claimed to reduce radar signature by 90%. The success of the schnorkel is shown by the fact that Germany was losing 25% of its uboats to air attack while running on the surface returning to or leaving the Bay of Biscay. In June, 1944, not a single schnorkel equipped boat was sunk. Right up until the loss of French bases, schnorkel equipped boats were able to transit the Bay of Biscay in relative safety. While the electroboats were developed, and 120 hulls were built, the tremendous logistic and material problems caused by constant allied bombings meant only two boats made any patrols, and those were just a week before the surrender. Neither boat sunk any ships, although both skippers said they made dummy attacks undetected but didn't fire due to receiving the surrender message. Even if the war has continued, it would have been many moths before a significant number of electroboats got in service. Schnorkel equipped uboats would have remained the backbone of the submarine fleet.
24
Q&A Why did Germany continue with twin turrets when it was clear that triple turrets could have reduced the overall length and increased armor protection over the shorter area? Triple turrets for 16" guns goes all the way back to 1927 with the Nelsons. Why did the Germans persist with the 5.9" single purpose guns? The mix of SP and DP 4.1" guns again increased length and decreased armor protection. DP armament featured on US cruisers from the 1929 Pensacola class onwards, plus the Washington/South Dakota battleships, all completed or under construction by the time of the H class designs. Did the Germans not have the capability build large caliber triple turrets? Did they tactically not understand the value of DP armament?
19
@РоманБекиров-с4м No, it wasn't only used by the Americans and wasn't just for the Pacific. The first all or nothing battleships were the British Nelson class and French Dunkerque-class. The US, starting with the Nevada class, used a modified all or nothing scheme due to the lessons of Jutland. There was nothing about the Atlantic or even the Channel outside the Strait of Dover that would obviate the possibility of long range plunging fire.
6
@jcgamer892 I understand that, but they also had the advantage of the Abwehr, a well developed intelligence network, from 1921 forward. They certainly knew what the Americans, British, and French were building in terms of battleships, and their future plans for more battleships. The inability to build new battleships hampered some technological improvements, but the Deutschland class and Scharnhorst class ships all had triple 11" turrets so the concept wasn't a mystery. Why did the Bismarck and H Classes revert to twin turrets?
5
@diestormlie It must have been something along these lines. I know they had issues with the the width of the Kiel Canal. I don't know if the H class battleships were designed to conform to that width or if they had abandoned the concept by then,
3
@rnrailproductions5049 Good morning as well. Drach always posts these just as I'm about to finally retire for the night, and then there are questions raised by the video, and then answers to questions...and then it's 0542 and I still haven't gone to bed. Thank goodness I'm retired and single. No work I have to be at and no wife harping at me to come to bed. :-)
2
@BrassLock Funny how sleeping habits are so different for people. I've always been a night owl, more so now that I'm retired. I usually hit the sack about 0300 and get up again about 1000. As I've gotten older I find I only require 6-7 hours sleep compared to the 8-9 I required when I was younger. Of course, being a retired bum now, I can always sneak in a nap when i need it. Today is shaping up to be one of those days.
2
@reluctantbias8508 See my reply to James296. I agree that things like armor schemes and fire control systems were a generation behind, but that doesn't explain twin turrets when Germany had already built capital ships with triple turrets. It had to have been some manufacturing limitation for large turrets not related to treaty restrictions.
2
@jcgamer892 Wait...what? We are posting on Drachinifel's channel now. Why would I need to check it out? He answered a question I posted about turret designs for British ships and another on triple turrets generally, but I don't recall anything about triple turrets for the H class.
2
@eplekake3870 No, they had treaty limits to worry about, even though they did routinely cheat on them. The Deutschland class large cruisers/"pocket battleships" were supposed to be built to the 10,000 ton limit of the Versailles Treaty. Even here, they waisted both space and tonnage on eight 15cm (5.9") guns. They were really too heavy for most commerce raiding purposes. If the Germans had developed the 105mm triaxially stabilized twin mount into a properly weatherproofed turret they would have had the space and weight on the Deutschlands for a balanced DP armament of 12-16 105mm guns with more than sufficient weight of shell and range for commerce raiding while having a far superior armament for antiaircraft use. As it was, they had to rearm the surviving units with six 88mm guns to replace to inadequate original three, and then six 105mm guns to replace the 88's. As the war progressed, they had to mount 20mm, 37mm, and 40mm antiaircraft guns where space was available while still carrying around the now useless 5.9" guns. It just seems to me the Germans never appreciated the value of dual purpose armament. They didn't just demonstrate this on their capital ships. They were the only country to arm destroyers with a gun as large as the 5.9" as well. They had excellent medium caliber dual purpose weapons in the 88mm and 105mm weapons so it's not as if they just didn't have the guns they needed. They just didn't understand why dual purpose guns were a better compromise than taking up space and weight for both SP and DP guns.
2
@jcgamer892 By confused, I meant that i think you're confusing a question /drach answered about triple turrets that;s different than the one I'm asking now. When it comes to know how, the RN never built a triple 16" turret until 1927 with the Nelsons. The USN never built a triple 16" turret until the 1938 North Carolina class. The RN and USN solved this problem, the RN much earlier that the Tirpitz class. Maybe it was an issue of building speed and just being able to reuse the design of the Baern class dual turrets rather than design a new triple turret..
2
@UCmbHqxwMGFUma3tcg0IUsYw And US cruisers were designed at the same time and they all had dual purpose armament. The 11" guns were supposed be used on opposing warships while the 5.9" were supposed to be used on merchant ships. My point was weight and space could have been saved and devoted to armor by using 105mm guns as the secondary armament. The 105's could have easily defeated merchant ships while still being effective against escorting destroyers, most of which didn't have any weapons larger than a 105 anyway. I just don't think the German understood the need for DP guns, whereas the USN was equipping all of its cruisers destroyers, and rearming many battleships with 5"/25 or 5"/38 DP: guns.
2
@chocolatecatdad The Iowa class had to fit through the Panama Canal. The narrowest lock was 110 feet wide so the Iowas had a beam of 108 feet two inches. They managed a 16" turret on that beam. The Bismarks had a beam of 118 feet. It's hard to reconcile beam limitations as a reason for not having triple turrets in German battleships. Something else was going on.
2
@rnrailproductions5049 BTW, I meant to say I have been watching and enjoying some of your videos but had failed to subscribe. Bad boy, but I have since corrected that.
1
@jcgamer892 No problem. I believe you're confusing a question of mine about triple turrets in general with my specific question about the H class. I'm sure Drach can tell us.
1
@calvingreene90 Indeed, the Brits have always been the best at spying, but I'm pretty sure even a fair to middling industrial espionage agent could know about British and US plans for building battleships, especially because it would mostly only require reading the morning papers over a spot of tea.
1
@michaelkroger899 Crew size for four turrets more than three...no more armor for twin turrets than triple...rate of fire has nothing to do with number of barrels...one less shell hoist and magazine with three than four...one less magazine with three than four...8 guns compared to 9...ship needs to be longer, engines more powerful for same speed...More armor for same protection...
1
@michaelkroger899 This thread is getting insanely long, but read Nguyen Johnathan's post about halfway down. I think he has the best answer. Krupp was the only turret builder for the navy, and their innate conservatism and dislike for the idea of anything other than twin turrets is how the battleships ended up with twin turrets. Not any inability to manufacture them, technical limitations of shipbuilding or canals, just that Krupp didn't want to build anything other than twin turrets. Since they had the monopoly, they ruled.
1
@michaelkroger899 Did you bother to read the post and summary of what Norman Friedman wrote? He's a long time naval analyst with the US Naval Institute with a PhD over 30 books to his credit on naval subjects from all over the world. His summary makes perfect sense. There no reason you need to be German to understand German shipbuilding anymore than you need to be American to understand US shipbuilding.
1
@michaelkroger899 Yes, and I'm 73 and have been reading on this theme for 60 years. So what? I still know there are people that know a lot more about naval technology and naval history than I do. Norman Friedman is one of those people. If you think you know more than a world renowned author and expert on the subject then your ego knows no bounds.
1
@michaelkroger899 And you know Mr. Friedman can't read German and no German book has ever been translated to English. You go ahead and get your facts in ways only you understand.
1
@frankwittner1979 That's certainly possible. The German had experience with twin turrets during WWI, and that concept probably carried over in WWII. It still seems odd that the Deutschlands and the light cruisers all had triple turrets though. It seems likely that the experience with twin turrets in 8" and above ships during the pervious war, Krupp's preference for building twin turrets, and the innate conservatism of the naval staff pushed the designers toward twin turrets.
1