question about German ship Grille

RamscoopRaider

Donor
No, the hull is beamier and is not going to get the same speed for the same HP, that would need to be changed to be acceptable, and by that point you might as well design a new ship, because you'd need to remove a lot of Grille's features to drop the beam 2 meters or so and the ship remain stable and useful
 

thaddeus

Donor
RamscoopRaider said:
No, the hull is beamier and is not going to get the same speed for the same HP, that would need to be changed to be acceptable, and by that point you might as well design a new ship, because you'd need to remove a lot of Grille's features to drop the beam 2 meters or so and the ship remain stable and useful
Click to expand...

what I'm reading has last modification of destroyers (built) at 12m vs. Grille at 13.5m

would the (possible) loss in top speed not be offset by ship not getting swamped in rough seas?
 

RamscoopRaider

Donor
thaddeus said:
what I'm reading has last modification of destroyers (built) at 12m vs. Grille at 13.5m

would the (possible) loss in top speed not be offset by ship not getting swamped in rough seas?
Click to expand...
Loss of top speed is certain, speed is partly determined by length to beam ratio. The longer a ship is compared to how wide it is the faster it will go all other things being equal. A 13.5m ship the same length as a 12m wide ship would need more power to get the same speed, which means more scarce fuel burned

For a frigate or Destroyer escort losing top speed for seaworthyness is an acceptable trade. For a WWII fleet destroyer it is not, at least to the degree that this change would allow. All WWII destroyers had problems in heavy seas, even "good" seaboats, simply because they were relatively small, the German vessels were worse than most, but that was partly because they tended to try to get as much bang for the buck as possible and overgunned the things
 

thaddeus

Donor
RamscoopRaider said:
No, the hull is beamier and is not going to get the same speed for the same HP, that would need to be changed to be acceptable, and by that point you might as well design a new ship, because you'd need to remove a lot of Grille's features to drop the beam 2 meters or so and the ship remain stable and useful
Click to expand...

thaddeus said:
what I'm reading has last modification of destroyers (built) at 12m vs. Grille at 13.5m

would the (possible) loss in top speed not be offset by ship not getting swamped in rough seas?
Click to expand...

French "super destroyers" of Mogador-class which was target of German destroyer development had 12.7m beam, pretty close, and they made 39 kts.

in addition to taking on a lot of water the OTL destroyers had severe roll and difficult to access high pressure steam engines, both problems might be addressed in class patterned after Grille
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
thaddeus said:
French "super destroyers" of Mogador-class which was target of German destroyer development had 12.7m beam, pretty close, and they made 39 kts.

in addition to taking on a lot of water the OTL destroyers had severe roll and difficult to access high pressure steam engines, both problems might be addressed in class patterned after Grille
Click to expand...

They were also 451 feet long and made 118,000 SHP (war emergency power) with 3,900 tons displacement (the Deutschland class "pocket battleships", all 14,000 tons of them, made 52,000 SHP).
 

thaddeus

Donor
thaddeus said:
French "super destroyers" of Mogador-class which was target of German destroyer development had 12.7m beam, pretty close, and they made 39 kts.

in addition to taking on a lot of water the OTL destroyers had severe roll and difficult to access high pressure steam engines, both problems might be addressed in class patterned after Grille
Click to expand...

CalBear said:
They were also 451 feet long and made 118,000 SHP (war emergency power) with 3,900 tons displacement (the Deutschland class "pocket battleships", all 14,000 tons of them, made 52,000 SHP).
Click to expand...

wasn't proposing a race with Mogador!

my scenario (or really question) was the KM had tested high pressure steam engines in Grille and Brummer in "mild versions" then installed a 70,000 hp version in 1934 -1936 destroyers, with poor results and poor access to engines.

how plausible that using design of Grille, obviously minus the state yacht amenities, might have corrected some of the flaws?
 

RodentRevolution

Banned
thaddeus said:
wasn't proposing a race with Mogador!

my scenario (or really question) was the KM had tested high pressure steam engines in Grille and Brummer in "mild versions" then installed a 70,000 hp version in 1934 -1936 destroyers, with poor results and poor access to engines.

how plausible that using design of Grille, obviously minus the state yacht amenities, might have corrected some of the flaws?
Click to expand...

She'd have made an okay light cruiser in World War 1 but by World War 2 destroyers would have eaten her for breakfast Loading modifications on her would have simply driven up cost without addressing the problem she would still likely be too slow for a destroyer and not strong enough for a contemporary light cruiser.
 

thaddeus

Donor
RodentRevolution said:
She'd have made an okay light cruiser in World War 1 but by World War 2 destroyers would have eaten her for breakfast Loading modifications on her would have simply driven up cost without addressing the problem she would still likely be too slow for a destroyer and not strong enough for a contemporary light cruiser.
Click to expand...

maybe/probably not clear but my scenario was for the OTL engines of 1934 - 1936 German destroyers to be used, just in the hull design of Grille

have 70,000hp 115m (at waterline) 135m (overall) x 13.5m beam OR extend hull at waterline to 120m (as they did on 1936 destroyer class, which still retains pronounced yacht profile)

have no guess on top speed, with 22,000 or 26,000 hp (sources vary) Grille made 26 kts vs. 1936 destroyer class 38.5 kts
 

RodentRevolution

Banned
thaddeus said:
maybe/probably not clear but my scenario was for the OTL engines of 1934 - 1936 German destroyers to be used, just in the hull design of Grille

have 70,000hp 115m (at waterline) 135m (overall) x 13.5m beam OR extend hull at waterline to 120m (as they did on 1936 destroyer class, which still retains pronounced yacht profile)

have no guess on top speed, with 22,000 or 26,000 hp (sources vary) Grille made 26 kts vs. 1936 destroyer class 38.5 kts
Click to expand...

Well it looks according to Springsharps (the ship design modelling program) that you can get it to 34 knots on 70k horsepower. The bad news might be that wedging in that much engine screws her trim as I get a bad seaboat according to the report...but I should also come with a badge saying "Not a Naval Architect" so I may be forgetting something.

Still my instincts suggest she is not an obvious replacement for Germany's actual destroyer designs.
 

thaddeus

Donor
RodentRevolution said:
Well it looks according to Springsharps (the ship design modelling program) that you can get it to 34 knots on 70k horsepower. The bad news might be that wedging in that much engine screws her trim as I get a bad seaboat according to the report...but I should also come with a badge saying "Not a Naval Architect" so I may be forgetting something.

Still my instincts suggest she is not an obvious replacement for Germany's actual destroyer designs.
Click to expand...

of course what the KM SHOULD have built was 1939 Torpedo Boat Elbing-class which was (small) destroyer size and by all accounts a great design.

however they were going with "super destroyer" concept to counter French, therefore my interest in what other designs were available to them at that time. the two test bed ships were Brummer and Grille.

(thanks for modelling ship and estimate of speed)
 
Last edited:

RamscoopRaider

Donor
thaddeus said:
of course what the KM SHOULD have built was 1939 Torpedo Boat Elbing-class which was (small) destroyer size and by all accounts a great design.

however they were going with "super destroyer" concept to counter French, therefore my interest in what other designs were available to them at that time. the two test bed ships were Brummer and Grille.

(thanks for modelling ship and estimate of speed)
Click to expand...
I wouldn't consider building only light DD's like the Elbing the best idea. Elbings don't really have the firepower to screen against the larger French DD's. Given that ever since the Weimar Republic the German Navy considered fighting the French to be its main purpose (fighting the RN was considered a lost cause), they need something to deal with the large French DD's if they wanted to operate their capital ships against the MN

Also their large destroyers are about the size of late war USN and RN DD's, so are not really oversized
 

thaddeus

Donor
RamscoopRaider said:
I wouldn't consider building only light DD's like the Elbing the best idea. Elbings don't really have the firepower to screen against the larger French DD's. Given that ever since the Weimar Republic the German Navy considered fighting the French to be its main purpose (fighting the RN was considered a lost cause), they need something to deal with the large French DD's if they wanted to operate their capital ships against the MN

Also their large destroyers are about the size of late war USN and RN DD's, so are not really oversized
Click to expand...

as far as OTL build the Elbing-class would have been best choice, my understanding is that 1932 naval plan was for 48(?) 1,500-ton DDs (in other words Elbing-class)

that got scrapped and they built 12 - 16 "super destroyers" to compete with French and 21 of 1935 - 1937 torpedo boat class (which were barely used during wartime.)

hence my question or scenario about Grille, if they DID go with high pressure steam engines why not use hull design from test bed program and something more seaworthy.

even if it tops out at 35 kts? the OTL boats in practical terms did not manage better and had to retain a lot of fuel to prevent roll further cutting their range.
 

RamscoopRaider

Donor
thaddeus said:
as far as OTL build the Elbing-class would have been best choice, my understanding is that 1932 naval plan was for 48(?) 1,500-ton DDs (in other words Elbing-class)

that got scrapped and they built 12 - 16 "super destroyers" to compete with French and 21 of 1935 - 1937 torpedo boat class (which were barely used during wartime.)

hence my question or scenario about Grille, if they DID go with high pressure steam engines why not use hull design from test bed program and something more seaworthy.

even if it tops out at 35 kts? the OTL boats in practical terms did not manage better and had to retain a lot of fuel to prevent roll further cutting their range.
Click to expand...
About the same time the French started buildung more large DD's, and getting rid of their smaller WWI era DD's. Before then the Large French DD's could be considered Flotilla leaders, not a threat of their own. Now with the French building more large DD's and reducing the number of flotillas, that changes the equation

The 1935 and 1937 classes were built to exploit a loophole, if they build them bigger they would not fit into that loophole and risk getting the UK building up faster earlier

34 knots. And if that is what it tops out as it will be slower in normal use just like those destroyers. Of course it will have a longer range, but Germany is not going to need that longer range
 

thaddeus

Donor
thaddeus said:
as far as OTL build the Elbing-class would have been best choice, my understanding is that 1932 naval plan was for 48(?) 1,500-ton DDs (in other words Elbing-class)

that got scrapped and they built 12 - 16 "super destroyers" to compete with French and 21 of 1935 - 1937 torpedo boat class (which were barely used during wartime.)

hence my question or scenario about Grille, if they DID go with high pressure steam engines why not use hull design from test bed program and something more seaworthy.

even if it tops out at 35 kts? the OTL boats in practical terms did not manage better and had to retain a lot of fuel to prevent roll further cutting their range.
Click to expand...

RamscoopRaider said:
About the same time the French started buildung more large DD's, and getting rid of their smaller WWI era DD's. Before then the Large French DD's could be considered Flotilla leaders, not a threat of their own. Now with the French building more large DD's and reducing the number of flotillas, that changes the equation

The 1935 and 1937 classes were built to exploit a loophole, if they build them bigger they would not fit into that loophole and risk getting the UK building up faster earlier

34 knots. And if that is what it tops out as it will be slower in normal use just like those destroyers. Of course it will have a longer range, but Germany is not going to need that longer range
Click to expand...

not quite sure what (if any) building program you ARE advocating?

if you are simply reiterating that the Grille would be slower than the OTL 1934, 1934A, 1936 destroyers so that a hull design change would not be advisable point taken.

http://german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/destroyer/zerstorer1934/index.html

"Their high pressure turbine engines caused many problems during operations, which were limited by the short range of those ships... Test installations on land were very promising, but when installed on board on the destroyers, the engines rooms got very crowded making maintenance very difficult."

my view is the design change would help solve maintenance issue, allow for greater fuel capacity, and lessen problem with roll in rougher sea.

considering KM lost much of their destroyer force at Narvik due to fuel resupply problem? greater range does seem worthwhile.

1935 - 1937 torpedo boat classes were considered a failure and seldom used.

probably gotten the same utility from more S-boats and converted commercial ships.
 

RamscoopRaider

Donor
thaddeus said:
not quite sure what (if any) building program you ARE advocating?

if you are simply reiterating that the Grille would be slower than the OTL 1934, 1934A, 1936 destroyers so that a hull design change would not be advisable point taken.

http://german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/destroyer/zerstorer1934/index.html

"Their high pressure turbine engines caused many problems during operations, which were limited by the short range of those ships... Test installations on land were very promising, but when installed on board on the destroyers, the engines rooms got very crowded making maintenance very difficult."

my view is the design change would help solve maintenance issue, allow for greater fuel capacity, and lessen problem with roll in rougher sea.

considering KM lost much of their destroyer force at Narvik due to fuel resupply problem? greater range does seem worthwhile.

1935 - 1937 torpedo boat classes were considered a failure and seldom used.

probably gotten the same utility from more S-boats and converted commercial ships.
Click to expand...
I'm arguing the OTL program had its reasons for doing what it did, and not for arguing with hindsight.

The 1935-37 Torpedo boats were freebies from a Treaty perspective, actually getting effective ships would reduce your numbers of destroyers you could build. Since effective torpedo carrying craft just under 600 tons had been built before, not at least trying would be stupid. Of course not building the 37's after the failure of the 35 would make sense even in context

Germany of all the major WWII powers could best afford short ranged, unseaworthy, maintenance hog DD's, as they would not be doing any long range, open sea DD operations, they are going to be spending most of their time in port even if they weren't anyways. Building their DD's slower would mean they could not run from supierior forces, and would lose their destroyers anyhow. So yes I am reiterating I do not think sacrificing speed is a good idea

The Germans themselves determined the 10.5cm was insufficient to deal with French Large DD's. So building only 10.5cm armed DD's like the Elbings could not be considered a good idea

In short I am arguing for a balanced program like OTL's. Some small DD's, some pocket DD's (to exploit the Treaties if nothing else) and some large fast DD's
 

thaddeus

Donor
RamscoopRaider said:
I'm arguing the OTL program had its reasons for doing what it did, and not for arguing with hindsight.

The 1935-37 Torpedo boats were freebies from a Treaty perspective, actually getting effective ships would reduce your numbers of destroyers you could build. Since effective torpedo carrying craft just under 600 tons had been built before, not at least trying would be stupid. Of course not building the 37's after the failure of the 35 would make sense even in context

Germany of all the major WWII powers could best afford short ranged, unseaworthy, maintenance hog DD's, as they would not be doing any long range, open sea DD operations, they are going to be spending most of their time in port even if they weren't anyways. Building their DD's slower would mean they could not run from supierior forces, and would lose their destroyers anyhow. So yes I am reiterating I do not think sacrificing speed is a good idea

In short I am arguing for a balanced program like OTL's. Some small DD's, some pocket DD's (to exploit the Treaties if nothing else) and some large fast DD's
Click to expand...

appreciate your post and especially point about treaty loophole, recall that the 1935 - 1937 torpedo boats also followed the Flottenbegleiter http://german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/escorts/flottenbegleiter/index.html similar sized and also subject to numerous constraints. developed prior so some of faults were becoming known?

any avenues to replace or modify those? (torpedo boats)

have to agree to disagree on destroyer design, my scenario is employing a contemporary boat, one used to test the high pressure steam engines, so do not think it is (TOO) farfetched (also approx. same tonnage as OTL destroyers.)
 

RamscoopRaider

Donor
thaddeus said:
appreciate your post and especially point about treaty loophole, recall that the 1935 - 1937 torpedo boats also followed the Flottenbegleiter http://german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/escorts/flottenbegleiter/index.html similar sized and also subject to numerous constraints. developed prior so some of faults were becoming known?

any avenues to replace or modify those? (torpedo boats)

have to agree to disagree on destroyer design, my scenario is employing a contemporary boat, one used to test the high pressure steam engines, so do not think it is (TOO) farfetched (also approx. same tonnage as OTL destroyers.)
Click to expand...
Could get rid of the minelaying capability, but given that mines were Germany's most effective naval weapon in WWI, that looks to be too big a sacrifice. Could reduce the torpedo load, but that makes them less effective at their primary mission. Dropping the caliber of the main gun to 7.5cm would save some weight but not much. The issue is that they are trying to put too much into too small a hull. The phrase "trying to shove a quart into a pint pot" effectively describes them

I think it is. Destroyers have a pretty distinct hull form to get maximum speed. Speed is important for a DD. The British were building 28 knot BB's and the French 30 knot. A 34 knot DD would spend 33% and 50% longer in the engagment range of a British or French BB respctively than a 36 knot DD, and would be unable to avoid contact with the mass numbers of 36 knot British DD's. German DD's are going to be stuck near the baltic or coast even in the best case scenario, so seaworthiness and range are not needed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top