Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Nelson and Bismarck again.  (Read 6737 times)

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,886
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Nelson and Bismarck again.
« on: April 30, 2007, 07:03:11 pm »

I hope I am not flogging a dead horse here, but we all have our own way of taking photographs. I have already had a complaint from one of our club members thet there is "no point of reference" to indicate scale. I think that the models should stand "on their own feet" as it were. Members of this forum will be aware that both of these models are in excess of 8' long and are very heavy.
For some reason the "Nelson" is the faster of the pair. I am inclined to think that given the similar weights perhaps the (model) "Nelson" has more efficient propellers. Also, when watching them both in close-up, the "Nelson" seems to slide through the water just that little bit easier. Both builders did a remarkable amount of research before building, and I have no doubt that the scale sizes are as correct as is possible. The photos can sometimes be a little misleading.
Forgive me for revering to another thread here, but when Malcolm (the Doogan) first launched "Bismarck" a few weeks ago (see earlier pics) he had the props turning "inwards"..and the handling was crap to say the least. At my instigation he swapped them over and the difference is a revelation. I still think he needs more efficient props however.
But enjoy the pictures...
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11,263
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2007, 08:57:01 pm »

Those three pictures show the relative sizes much better - absolutely great! My feeling is that Nelson was marginally the better ship. Although slower she packed a much heavier broadside and was probably a more efficient design as far as protection was concerned.
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,886
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2007, 11:06:46 pm »

Those three pictures show the relative sizes much better - absolutely great! My feeling is that Nelson was marginally the better ship. Although slower she packed a much heavier broadside and was probably a more efficient design as far as protection was concerned.
Talking about "broadsides"...in 1992 I was priveleged to observe a US Battleship firing one off the Phillipines. Apart from all the noise and stuff I was totally amazed that the whole ship moved sideways 9 feet when all the big guns fired. Some recoil!
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

antuk

  • Guest
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2007, 11:11:57 pm »

these are really two beautifull ships .hats off to there builders and i hope my ship looks as good as these :)
Logged

ScaleShipyard

  • Guest
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2007, 09:09:32 am »

What scale are these 2 models?

Sorry, the Iowa class battleships did not move sideways when the main battery fired a 9 gun salvo, and I have heard people say that she would slide 90 feet to the side  :o
Simply not true.
Logged

Martin [Admin]

  • Administrator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21,112
  • Location: Peterborough, UK
    • Model Boat Mayhem
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2007, 02:40:34 pm »



I have no idea what the effect of a full battleship salvo has one a vessel and can't even begin to imagine the sensation.
Has anyone on here experienced a large Gun being fired?

Also, wasn't there internal gun turret explosion a few years back on an American battleship?
What happened?

Martin



Sorry, the Iowa class battleships did not move sideways when the main battery fired a 9 gun salvo, and I have heard people say that she would slide 90 feet to the side  :o
Simply not true.
Logged
"This is my firm opinion, but what do I know?!"    -   Mayhem FaceBook Group!

anmo

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 299
  • That's unpossible!
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2007, 03:40:30 pm »




Also, wasn't there internal gun turret explosion a few years back on an American battleship?
What happened?

Martin





Indeed there was Martin, it occurred on Iowa back in 1989, and I saw some of the damage a few years afterwards. There were several theories for the cause of the explosion, none of them proven, and the official enquiry didn't reached a firm conclusion. One possibility was a failure of some kind in the ramming mechanism on one of the 16" guns, and another was a bizzarre suicide for insurance purposes by one of the turret's crew, and if so, he took another 46 US Navy personnel with him.

I visited the ship when it docked at Portsmouth some time in the 90s, a memorable experience. For the usual security reasons, the visit hadn't been publicised, I happened to be in the town on business, and saw the queue snaking out of the Naval Dockyard, and decided to join it, it took about an hour and a half to reach the ship. I'd never been on a battleship before, and it was quite an experience. The ship itself was much smaller than I'd expected, but to stand on those well-worn planked decks that men stood on in WW2 was really something. The barbette under B turret had split, the damage hadn't been repaired, and I was able to poke my fingers right into the gap in the armour, which I'd guess would have been something like 16" thick. A nearby seaman clearly had instructions not to say anything much, but he told me that the turret had been sealed following the disaster and never reopened.
Logged
caution, may contain traces of nuts .....

Brian_C

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 407
  • Location: north shields
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2007, 07:00:06 pm »

What scale are these 2 models?

Sorry, the Iowa class battleships did not move sideways when the main battery fired a 9 gun salvo, and I have heard people say that she would slide 90 feet to the side  :o
Simply not true.
    HI  scale shipyard, the models are both 96th scale, 8th inch to the foot, nelson took me three yrs to build, any other queries feel free to ask or if you need any other  pics i can email them to you, ive got some real good ones which i cant shrink enough to fit on the forum   regards brian_c   ;)
Logged

ScaleShipyard

  • Guest
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2007, 12:12:11 am »

Hi Brian:

I was once building a hull master for the Nelson in 1:96 scale but the master was damaged beyond economical repair and was scrapped, I never got back to it, I still do not have any RN hulls available, but I recently worked up the templates for the KGV in 1:96 scale, now I just need to clear the space to build her, the 1944 version of the West Virginia and Alaska are taking away the slipway area, not to mention 2 Nimitz hulls in the shop for shipment, I can't even work on my own projects for now.

On the Iowa Turret explosion, I worked on the Iowa twice last year and there was no split in the barbett, what happened on the Iowa was more of a conflaguration then an outright explosion, I was up inside turret 2 and there was a lot of damage but no serious structural damage, and all was readily repairable, it is kind of eerie up in the turret, I inspected the structural damage down to the bottom of the turret decks, the powder hoist seems to have taken the most damage, I don't think they make a hammer big enough to pound that back into place, it would have had to be removed and replaced. The plan was to remove the turret roof plates in order to access all of the neccessary spaces in there as well as replacement of that barrel.
Logged

COOP

  • Guest
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2007, 09:19:17 pm »

Hello  All

Iam tryng to understand why this discussion is leaning towards the reality of war aboard a battleship. as i, having for my sins have only fought as land based cavalry N.C.O .I think we are building model ships and as such We have to work within, Fairly well designed limit, Therefore I think the arguments are more acadaemia than reality. I Woud further state that I believe we are a MODELLING forum. And to understand a naval broadside and all its implications are beyond theaverage civilian. I really appreciate the commitment of all our forum members and while we try to to produce models to the best of our ability we also have to consider our limits.P.S My paternal grandfather was a p.o. aboard H.M.S.LION. at JUTLAND
Logged

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,886
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2007, 10:41:15 pm »

Hello  All

Iam tryng to understand why this discussion is leaning towards the reality of war aboard a battleship. as i, having for my sins have only fought as land based cavalry N.C.O .I think we are building model ships and as such We have to work within, Fairly well designed limit, Therefore I think the arguments are more acadaemia than reality. I Woud further state that I believe we are a MODELLING forum. And to understand a naval broadside and all its implications are beyond theaverage civilian. I really appreciate the commitment of all our forum members and while we try to to produce models to the best of our ability we also have to consider our limits.P.S My paternal grandfather was a p.o. aboard H.M.S.LION. at JUTLAND
All lends to the knowledge...and nowt wrong with that. BY.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11,263
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2007, 10:46:05 pm »

Personally I think that it is important that we try to understand these things - that way it's less likely that they will occur in the future. Its the death or glory boys who don't appreciate what they are getting into - and they are usually civilians. Professional soldiers know only too well what the realities are.
Logged

farrow

  • Guest
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2008, 10:17:49 pm »

I was under the impression that part of modelling was researching your vessel and all its foibles etc, in doing so this increases your knowledge of the vessel and the era it was in service, a bit like the programme Time Watch except that the modeler has done the research for his own benefit. Also it makes a good discussion point for others which increases their other than just visual pleasure.
Picking up on the Nelsons attributes, I have read somewhere that the Nelson did more damage to the Bismark as the 14" guns where not that very effective as found out by the Anson firing point blank on the Scharnhorst.
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11,263
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #13 on: January 26, 2008, 10:28:10 pm »

It was the Duke of York that sunk the Scharnhorst, not Anson. ;) 16 inch shells weigh a lot more than 14 inch ones, around 2,400lb against 1400lb although that isn't the whole story when gauging relative effectiveness.
Logged

Mr Andy

  • Guest
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2008, 06:55:11 pm »

I have books relating to warships, I certainly don't mind reading about them on here or any other web page.

Andy. :)
Logged

watersnail

  • Guest
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2008, 09:34:49 pm »

 {-) Hiya all,my late Dad was Navy all his life,he was on a guard ship when Warspite left the docks and did fire check on main guns off
      Scapa Flo during WW11,it was impossible he told me for a full broadside all guns at once,they rippled fired,one after another,mind you he did say from half a mile behind her she did move sideways !It is still modelling if some one can do it at 1/96 !!
Logged

Peter Fitness

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,182
  • Location: Wyrallah, near Lismore NSW Australia
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2008, 01:10:57 am »

I am in awe of anyone who has the skill and patience to build models of any warship, let alone a capital ship. The amount of detail on the models pictured is amazing and a tribute to the talents of the builders. O0
Peter.
Logged

Brian_C

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 407
  • Location: north shields
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2008, 09:34:19 am »

hi peter,  thanks for the comment,   O0 O0   (and by the way lads) i didn't pay peter for that posting.   {-) {-) {-) {-) ;)
Logged

Peter Fitness

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,182
  • Location: Wyrallah, near Lismore NSW Australia
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2008, 12:55:33 am »

Brian, I'm devastated,  :'( I thought the cheque would be in the mail {-)
Peter.
Logged

sweeper

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 199
  • When all else fails, read the instructions
  • Location: On the edge of reason, in the state of Confusion
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2008, 12:12:19 pm »

Watersnail,
This info may be of interest to you, re: the firing of guns.

"When two or more guns which are situated close together are fired simultaneously the air disturbances round each shell react on each other and affect their flight, with the result that large spreads are obtained. Arrangements are made therefore for the centre gun of triple turrets and one gun of certain twin mountings to be fired at slightly different times. This is not completely satisfactory if remote power control is not fitted and the ship is rolling, the delay imposed gives additional inaccracies.
The compromise adopted is for the delayed guns to be fired 0.015 seconds after the others. This is done by increasing the resistance of the firing leads by 10 Ohms in a 22V circuit and by 20 Ohms in 40V circuits".
Source : Naval Electrical Pocket Book B.R. 157 (52) pages 304 & 305

Regards
Logged

watersnail

  • Guest
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2008, 01:39:40 pm »

  he he Sweeper.ive seen that book somewhere in all me junk ! Have to find it
Logged

Capricorn

  • Guest
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #21 on: February 05, 2008, 05:29:39 am »

Looks in this picture like the ship is sort of recoiling?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg

I imagine one could calculate the relative momentum of the broadside and the ship, if 9 projectiles (~2400x9=21,600 lbs) leave with a velocity of say 2500 fps, the momentum is 1/2mv^2, working backward the ship weighs about 99,000,000 lbs, the ship should move 37 ft per sec, except it's in the water which prevents that.  Am I way off here or is that a lot, you'd think it would knock everyone on to the deck (or flip the boat over).  I imagine there is some extraordinary energy dissipation going on within the ship itself too.

Cap

Logged

grantl

  • Guest
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #22 on: February 05, 2008, 01:29:15 pm »

Momentum is mv, what you have there is kinetic energy.
Momentum is conserved so you would have Vship = MShell x VShell / MShip
Assuming, as physicists like to, that friction is negligable you'd get about 0.5 fps.
But with the ripple firing and the frictional effects of trying to move a huge ship sideways, you'd not see that speed
(I have not done this stuff for 20+ years, but I think I'm right.)

Regards,

Grant.
Logged

Capricorn

  • Guest
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #23 on: February 05, 2008, 11:35:15 pm »

I think you are right too Grant, it's been a while for me as well.  That makes a bit more sense.  Interesting coincidence the book I'm reading, Sea of Thunder, by Evan Thomas, says the New Jersey would shift 10 feet when firing a broadside, so that sort of confirms the 9 feet mentioned earlier. Thanks for correcting me, I'm always embarassing myself. ::)  Cap
Logged

farrow

  • Guest
Re: Nelson and Bismarck again.
« Reply #24 on: February 07, 2008, 03:39:21 pm »

Yeah sorry, when I turned in I realised my mistake.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up