CIA
Nie mam fotki Littorio, mam fotkę Kawiora w doku z dziurą w dnie ale to już chyba kiedyś zamieszczałem na fow. Mam za to opis:
The Conte di Cavour was not hit on the Pugliese system at all. The torpedo exploded under the hull, or may be just hitting the keel. There is a good picture of the damage, just under the forward ammo magazine (12*8 m.). All the bow section was flooded, with 17 dead, neverthless the ship could had been grounded in a better position if some time would not had been lost in discussions... It is a fairly common opinion that no BB, even the latest designs could had survived to such a hit;
The Duilio was hit between the forward magazines at 23.25, and was grounded at 5.45. The hole was 11*7 m. Unfortunately I can't recall a picture of the damage, to tell if and how the Pugliese system was affected, I will perform some digging, but everything seems to indicate a direct hit on the system;
The Littorio was hit three times at Taranto:
- at the 162-63 frames, with deformations for a height of ten meters, interesting the frames from 165 to 159, and the breaking of the external and internal structures for an height of 7.5 m. between frames 165-159; this is the only hit affecting the Pugliese system. The torpedo bulkhead was ruptured, with floodings in the double bottom;
- the second torpedo hit at frame 9, with essentially minor damage
- the third at frame 192, with deformations between frames 183-199, 11 m. in height, and braking between 187-196 for an height of 10.4 m. This was tha most destructive hit.
Torpedy w Tarencie
o masz!Lutek Narożniak nie zna się na xhtml...obrazki wciąż nie działają...
MiKesz, czy ty jestes adminem specjalnej troski?
tyle razy juz tlumaczylem, ze zdjec z Albumu starego (z php) nie bedzie mozna wklejac ze wzgledow bezpieczenstwa!
trzeba sie poslugiwac nowym albumem
jest o wiele fajniejszy...
PS
masz juz to nowe haslo, na forum Nali, co mi obiecales?
Wcale nie jest fajniejszynicpon pisze:trzeba sie poslugiwac nowym albumem
jest o wiele fajniejszy...
W dawnym dawalo sie wklejac obrazki a w tym sie nie da
Chrzanic kwestie bezpieczenstwa, ja chce stary album!!!
Podczas gdy Kłapouchy wszystkim się zadręcza,
Prosiaczek nie może się zdecydować, Królik wszystko kalkuluje,
a Sowa wygłasza wyrocznie - Puchatek po prostu jest...
Prosiaczek nie może się zdecydować, Królik wszystko kalkuluje,
a Sowa wygłasza wyrocznie - Puchatek po prostu jest...
skad wiesz?W dawnym dawalo sie wklejac obrazki a w tym sie nie da
UWAGA! UWAGA! ACHTUNG!
dla wszystkich zagubionych w akcji i dla Mikesza
http://www.fow.aplus.pl/album/
TO JEST NOWY ALBUM!!![/img]
Re: Torpedy w Tarencie
Dzięki MiKo - jak zwykle jesteś nioceniony 
, ale... jest jeszcze wiele pytań ... 
No to system wytrzymał czy nie wytrzymał?
Skoro piszą, ze woda zalała tylko podwójne dno (w tym miejscu było potrójne dno, ale pewnie zalało tylko podwójne ?) - to chyba jednak system wytrzymał?
Na jakiej głębokości uderzyła torpeda?
Zdaje się, że słabym punktem było łączenie grodzi (tej zaokrąglonej) z dnem?
, ale... jest jeszcze wiele pytań ... Właściwie to interesuje mnie ten powyższy kawałek.MiKo pisze: The Littorio was hit three times at Taranto:
- at the 162-63 frames, with deformations for a height of ten meters, interesting the frames from 165 to 159, and the breaking of the external and internal structures for an height of 7.5 m. between frames 165-159; this is the only hit affecting the Pugliese system. The torpedo bulkhead was ruptured, with floodings in the double bottom;
No to system wytrzymał czy nie wytrzymał?
Skoro piszą, ze woda zalała tylko podwójne dno (w tym miejscu było potrójne dno, ale pewnie zalało tylko podwójne ?) - to chyba jednak system wytrzymał?
Na jakiej głębokości uderzyła torpeda?
Zdaje się, że słabym punktem było łączenie grodzi (tej zaokrąglonej) z dnem?
Ciekawe stwierdzenieMiKo pisze: The Conte di Cavour was not hit on the Pugliese system at all.(...) It is a fairly common opinion that no BB, even the latest designs could had survived to such a hit;
Ostatnio zmieniony 2004-12-08, 09:35 przez CIA, łącznie zmieniany 1 raz.
Badziewnicpon pisze:skad wiesz?W dawnym dawalo sie wklejac obrazki a w tym sie nie da
UWAGA! UWAGA! ACHTUNG!
dla wszystkich zagubionych w akcji i dla Mikesza
http://www.fow.aplus.pl/album/
TO JEST NOWY ALBUM!!![/img]
Trzeba czekać, aż administrator zaakceptuje obrazek ...
"Poprzedni plik został umieszczony w albumie.
Plik został przesłany
Będzie widoczny po akceptacji przez administratora."
CIA
Nie wiele więcej mam na ten temat. To pisał Czarnecki na Warshipie kiedyś:
11 November 1940 Littorio took three MkXII aerial torpedo hits with 176kg (Warships1) warheads. The first struck the starboard bow abreast/abaft turret I, the second struck the port quarter above/forward of the rudder post, and the third struck the starboard bow forward of turret I's gun muzzles (Garzke & Dulin, Breyer; Smithers places the first hit under the forward starboard secondary turret; Whitley credits only one hit forward). The second and third hits were outside the Pugliese system. The first was within it. Garzke and Dulin speak only of damage to the system itself and the flooding of some of the double bottom, apparently inboard of the system. They also belabor the lower rivetted joint of the system, presumably because of this sort of damage. Note, however, that this constitutes flooding behind the TDS and therefore a failure. One wonders how much. After taking this hit, the ship was hit aft on the opposite side, which would presumably provide some de facto counterflooding. Then came the third hit fairly far forward, at which point the ship destabilized longitudinally, apparently settling her bow on the bottom where she lay (Bragadin, Whitley, Breyer, Smithers) or after being moved and actively beached (Garzke & Dulin). In this instance, Garzke and Dulin appear to be wrong because all other sources indicate the Italians move the ship only with great caution due to an unexploded MkXII with a duplex (contact and magnetic) warhead lying under the ship. Given the fact that the ship's bow hit the bottom where she lay, clearly in any deeper environment she was finished and would have plunged. But why? She had been hit in both ends and should still have been able to float thanks to her citadel spaces being unflooded. This indicates that the first hit was more serious than Dulin and Garzke indicate. With flooding in the forward end of the citadel in addition to beyond it forward, longitudinal destablization makes much more sense. For this to be the case, the Pugliese system had to have failed, which their comments about the double-bottom flooding would indicate (although that little of a flooding extent would seem inadequate to destabilize the ship). Presumably one could suppose the ship's bow not to have been in a condition of watertight integrity, but this is hard to believe. These ships were clearly anchored in a roadstead where torpedo attack was regarded as a hazard (hence the torpedo netting) and not tied to docks or quays (as at Pearl Harbor). Moreover, Littorio's third hit came some 46 minutes after the first, giving ample time to establish watertight integrity in that part of the ship, an act that would have been initiated from the first alarm. Bragadin would have us believe the hits were unusually effective for the use of magnetically fuzed warheads, but none of the hits were under-bottom hits. All were contact hits and the depth of the weapons was, in fact, set for contact--deep contact to run under the short Italian torpedo nets, but contact nonetheless. The only vaguely "underbottom" hit was the hit aft on Littorio and that resulted from the natural overhang and cut-away associated with any ship's propulsive arrangements and it too went off on contact. Nor do the magnetic fuzes appear to have been effective. Dickens had nothing but contempt for them in British service and the weapon that lay under Littorio remained helpfully inert.
Ale jak widać na zdjęciu Conte nie dokońca miał rację bo torpeda wybuchła dokładnie pod dnem.
Natomiast to Nathan Okun generalnie o Pugliese:
The Pugliesi system was designed to absorb energy by crushing the central empty "can" surrounded by liquid and backed by the "open-horse-shoe"-shaped top and inner bulkhead. However, it totally ignored the most important effect of the explosion: The huge shock wave formed that was in front of the slower pressure wave that the empty can was supposed to absorb. Thus, by the time the crushing effect began to take place, the shock wave had run around (above and below) the can through the liquid layer, which had no barriers to stop it, and hit the inner holding bulkhead full-tilt, blowing it open like an over-inflated balloon. The central can thus was "a day late and a dollar short" in trying to stop the torpedo's effects.
I dalej:
It really doesn't matter what is in the empty center void. The shock wave is moving at the speed of sound in water (faster next to the explosion itself!) and nothing that happens anywhere but right in front of each tiny section of the shock wave is going to affect that section. Thus, no matter what the cylinder does to the shock wave portion that hits it square-on, it has no effect on the rest of the shock wave moving around the perimeter and then smalling into the inside of the outward-curving holding bulkhead.
Note that such a bulkhead shape is completely dependent on the rivets/welds at the plate boundaries, since the plates are not being compressed, but stretched like a balloon. It has been found that such boundaries almost always fail under tensile shock loading if put under tensile loading, so you make the bulkheads thin enough to tear in the middle prior to tearing at their boundaries, since the middle can be reinforced by liquid behind it and/or by a layered spaced-plate design, while tears at the edges can cause damage to other attached portions of the ship beyond the bulkhead doing the tearing, like the hull bottom or other internal bulkheads/decks.
The idea is to localize the side hull damage to as narrow a horizontal distance as possible, both in the fore-aft direction and the inboard direction--in the up/down direction the hull is doing to be destroyed to the bottom edge of the armor belt or the waterline, whichever comes first, regardless of the design, which is why under-bottom hits by mines or magnetic-fuzed torpedoes (when they work correctly!!) are so much more dangerous!!
Nie wiele więcej mam na ten temat. To pisał Czarnecki na Warshipie kiedyś:
11 November 1940 Littorio took three MkXII aerial torpedo hits with 176kg (Warships1) warheads. The first struck the starboard bow abreast/abaft turret I, the second struck the port quarter above/forward of the rudder post, and the third struck the starboard bow forward of turret I's gun muzzles (Garzke & Dulin, Breyer; Smithers places the first hit under the forward starboard secondary turret; Whitley credits only one hit forward). The second and third hits were outside the Pugliese system. The first was within it. Garzke and Dulin speak only of damage to the system itself and the flooding of some of the double bottom, apparently inboard of the system. They also belabor the lower rivetted joint of the system, presumably because of this sort of damage. Note, however, that this constitutes flooding behind the TDS and therefore a failure. One wonders how much. After taking this hit, the ship was hit aft on the opposite side, which would presumably provide some de facto counterflooding. Then came the third hit fairly far forward, at which point the ship destabilized longitudinally, apparently settling her bow on the bottom where she lay (Bragadin, Whitley, Breyer, Smithers) or after being moved and actively beached (Garzke & Dulin). In this instance, Garzke and Dulin appear to be wrong because all other sources indicate the Italians move the ship only with great caution due to an unexploded MkXII with a duplex (contact and magnetic) warhead lying under the ship. Given the fact that the ship's bow hit the bottom where she lay, clearly in any deeper environment she was finished and would have plunged. But why? She had been hit in both ends and should still have been able to float thanks to her citadel spaces being unflooded. This indicates that the first hit was more serious than Dulin and Garzke indicate. With flooding in the forward end of the citadel in addition to beyond it forward, longitudinal destablization makes much more sense. For this to be the case, the Pugliese system had to have failed, which their comments about the double-bottom flooding would indicate (although that little of a flooding extent would seem inadequate to destabilize the ship). Presumably one could suppose the ship's bow not to have been in a condition of watertight integrity, but this is hard to believe. These ships were clearly anchored in a roadstead where torpedo attack was regarded as a hazard (hence the torpedo netting) and not tied to docks or quays (as at Pearl Harbor). Moreover, Littorio's third hit came some 46 minutes after the first, giving ample time to establish watertight integrity in that part of the ship, an act that would have been initiated from the first alarm. Bragadin would have us believe the hits were unusually effective for the use of magnetically fuzed warheads, but none of the hits were under-bottom hits. All were contact hits and the depth of the weapons was, in fact, set for contact--deep contact to run under the short Italian torpedo nets, but contact nonetheless. The only vaguely "underbottom" hit was the hit aft on Littorio and that resulted from the natural overhang and cut-away associated with any ship's propulsive arrangements and it too went off on contact. Nor do the magnetic fuzes appear to have been effective. Dickens had nothing but contempt for them in British service and the weapon that lay under Littorio remained helpfully inert.
Ale jak widać na zdjęciu Conte nie dokońca miał rację bo torpeda wybuchła dokładnie pod dnem.
Natomiast to Nathan Okun generalnie o Pugliese:
The Pugliesi system was designed to absorb energy by crushing the central empty "can" surrounded by liquid and backed by the "open-horse-shoe"-shaped top and inner bulkhead. However, it totally ignored the most important effect of the explosion: The huge shock wave formed that was in front of the slower pressure wave that the empty can was supposed to absorb. Thus, by the time the crushing effect began to take place, the shock wave had run around (above and below) the can through the liquid layer, which had no barriers to stop it, and hit the inner holding bulkhead full-tilt, blowing it open like an over-inflated balloon. The central can thus was "a day late and a dollar short" in trying to stop the torpedo's effects.
I dalej:
It really doesn't matter what is in the empty center void. The shock wave is moving at the speed of sound in water (faster next to the explosion itself!) and nothing that happens anywhere but right in front of each tiny section of the shock wave is going to affect that section. Thus, no matter what the cylinder does to the shock wave portion that hits it square-on, it has no effect on the rest of the shock wave moving around the perimeter and then smalling into the inside of the outward-curving holding bulkhead.
Note that such a bulkhead shape is completely dependent on the rivets/welds at the plate boundaries, since the plates are not being compressed, but stretched like a balloon. It has been found that such boundaries almost always fail under tensile shock loading if put under tensile loading, so you make the bulkheads thin enough to tear in the middle prior to tearing at their boundaries, since the middle can be reinforced by liquid behind it and/or by a layered spaced-plate design, while tears at the edges can cause damage to other attached portions of the ship beyond the bulkhead doing the tearing, like the hull bottom or other internal bulkheads/decks.
The idea is to localize the side hull damage to as narrow a horizontal distance as possible, both in the fore-aft direction and the inboard direction--in the up/down direction the hull is doing to be destroyed to the bottom edge of the armor belt or the waterline, whichever comes first, regardless of the design, which is why under-bottom hits by mines or magnetic-fuzed torpedoes (when they work correctly!!) are so much more dangerous!!
A po co nam nowy Album?! Stary jakos dzialal i bylo git. Rozumiem ze update foruma do nowego standardu byl spowodowany wzgledami bezpieczenstwa. Tylko nie jestem pewien czy warto, albowiem jakos nie zauwazylem zeby masy hackerow atakowaly nasze forum...
Podczas gdy Kłapouchy wszystkim się zadręcza,
Prosiaczek nie może się zdecydować, Królik wszystko kalkuluje,
a Sowa wygłasza wyrocznie - Puchatek po prostu jest...
Prosiaczek nie może się zdecydować, Królik wszystko kalkuluje,
a Sowa wygłasza wyrocznie - Puchatek po prostu jest...
