Effects of mechanical or structural failure on naval history

[vonfriedman]

I am interested in finding cases where structural or machanical (e.g. fatigue) failure hindered or prevented the participation of individual units to important episodes of naval warfare
Similarly, when HMS Indomitable ran aground, she left Prince of Wales and Repulse without air cover.
The fractures of Liberty ships and T2 tankers are well documented. Screw shaft failures are also recorded. See the postwar episode of USS Searcher (http://www.classypages.com/searcher/lostscrew.htm) that also was a converted Liberty ship.
I found very little about warships.
Can someone help me?

[bcoopactual]

Hmmm, that's tough because those kinds of things are embarrassing to the navy involved so they don't advertise it. I found this snippet from a book that claims HMS Royal Sovereign missed Jutland due to a mechanical failure.  The Wiki entry just says she wasn't ready in time for Jutland.  Sorry I don't have an actual copy of the source for the snippet but the conflicting reports goes to show why it would be tough to find examples.  Hopefully that's better than nothing.  

[vonfriedman]

Thank you for this information.
I found something about axial vibrations in the propulsion machinery of US battleships, see:
dome.mit.edu/handle/1721.3/48148
where some hints on related mechanical damage is also given.

Various troubles prevented Vittorio Veneto and Littorio to sail on July 1940 and to participate to the Battle of Calabria (or Battle of Punta Stilo). See:
it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussione%3ABattaglia_di_Punta_Stilo%2FTesto_attribuito_a_%22Francesco_Mattesini%22

[oldpop2000]

Jan 13, 2017 10:30:02 GMT -6 bcoopactual said:

Hmmm, that's tough because those kinds of things are embarrassing to the navy involved so they don't advertise it. I found this snippet from a book that claims HMS Royal Sovereign missed Jutland due to a mechanical failure.  The Wiki entry just says she wasn't ready in time for Jutland.  Sorry I don't have an actual copy of the source for the snippet but the conflicting reports goes to show why it would be tough to find examples.  Hopefully that's better than nothing.  

Royal Sovereign had engine problems caused by her inexperienced crew. She had only been in commission for three weeks so Jellicoe left her out.

[director]

1/21/1942 the USS Boise struck an uncharted shoal south of the Celebes and had to return to the US for repairs. She missed the early Pacific surface battles, likely including Java Sea.

And KMS Lutzow ran aground at the start of an operation against PQ-17 and had to return to Germany for repairs.

[vonfriedman]

In a paper published in 1959 on the Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers (Rudolf Michel - A Quarter Century of Propulsion Shafting Design Practice and Operating Experience in the U.S. Navy) a significant amount of cases of propeller shafts with fatigue and/or corrosion cracks are cited, both for BBs, CLs and DDs, but without indicating the names of the warships involved.
The author writes: "Up to 1948 56% of all propeller shafts contained corrosion-fatigue cracks". It may be presumed that some of these cases determined the loss of the propeller or serious damage.
A fatigue failure of one of the propeller shafts of the BB USS Oklahoma, short before Pearl Harbour, is also reported, as for attachment here included.

[vonfriedman]

Jan 16, 2017 0:32:56 GMT -6 director said:

1/21/1942 the USS Boise struck an uncharted shoal south of the Celebes and had to return to the US for repairs. She missed the early Pacific surface battles, likely including Java Sea.

And KMS Lutzow ran aground at the start of an operation against PQ-17 and had to return to Germany for repairs.

One famous case was the loss of one of the propellers of SMS Moltke and related damage to the machinery, that brought about the end of the operation of the Hochseeflotte in April 1918.

[oldpop2000]

My research shows that if you find and peruse through the Ships Deck Log, you will find many entries about mechanical failures, groundings and damage. There are numerous sources but most are archival in paper.

[felixg91]

Normal wear and tear is hardly noteworthy EXCEPT when you miss an op. Its inevitable and the cost of doing business.

Mechanical failure is incredibly common. Electrical even more so usually since the systems are even more fragile.

How about Varyag/Liaoning the engines were so bad it was towed to China. That is modern though. Actually all the carriers the Russians are selling to India and China were not as advertised, The Vikramaditya was gutted and rebuilt for instance.

IN ww2, well we always have nearly the entire Kriegsmarine Destroyer complement, all with unreliable propulsion. Don't ask me specifics about their engines though and I believe the Hipper Class had vast amounts of trouble with their propulsion, I could be wrong on both counts but I seem to remember reading that on Chuck Hawks or in Conways Fighting Ships. Not that I care, for my purposes they always show up to fight in simulation and are fine ships...Hippers are little undergunned for their size though, a little fragile too.

Uh the British K class submarines were practically known for being easier to sink permanently than keep from sinking. It was a steam driven submarine designed to operate with the fleet...not a great idea in practice.

Lemme think more....I

[oldpop2000]

Jan 18, 2017 15:51:19 GMT -6 felixg91 said:

Normal wear and tear is hardly noteworthy EXCEPT when you miss an op. Its inevitable and the cost of doing business.

Mechanical failure is incredibly common. Electrical even more so usually since the systems are even more fragile.

How about Varyag/Liaoning the engines were so bad it was towed to China. That is modern though. Actually all the carriers the Russians are selling to India and China were not as advertised, The Vikramaditya was gutted and rebuilt for instance.

IN ww2, well we always have nearly the entire Kriegsmarine Destroyer complement, all with unreliable propulsion. Don't ask me specifics about their engines though and I believe the Hipper Class had vast amounts of trouble with their propulsion, I could be wrong on both counts but I seem to remember reading that on Chuck Hawks or in Conways Fighting Ships. Not that I care, for my purposes they always show up to fight in simulation and are fine ships...Hippers are little undergunned for their size though, a little fragile too.

Uh the British K class submarines were practically known for being easier to sink permanently than keep from sinking. It was a steam driven submarine designed to operate with the fleet...not a great idea in practice.

Lemme think more....I

I agree Felix about normal wear and tear. In the aircraft world, normal peacetime ops are not too hard on birds, but when war comes then the combat hours increase dramatically and because of flight hours and the rush to get the birds back into the air. After Vietnam, we had to scrap a lot of F-4's who had simply worn out their structures. Electrical failures on birds can be fatal, so even with redundant system an aircraft can be lost.


Over the years, the Russian aircraft and ships have not improved in the area of operations. They are still poorly designed and very prone to mechanical failures. Quality control is almost none existent.


For the German destroyers, the early 1933 class had problems due to the fast construction. Their main issue was with the high pressure turbine engines. The succeeding classes got better but lack of maintenance by the end of the war showed wear and tear on the boilers and tubes.


Later classes were scheduled for six diesels but only got about four.


I believe the turbines were Wagner build by Deschimag.

[director]

As I remember, German ships in WW2 used extremely high-pressure steam propulsion (except for the Deutschland class, of course). This was really tricky to master, and the Germans went for the extreme without trying the intermediate steps first. As with a lot of their systems, this cost them heavily in terms of readiness. I've heard that some of the bigger ships had their propulsion plants modified and had gadgets added on to the point they almost didn't work at all.

The K-class subs were extremely complex because of their steam propulsion - lots of openings and valves and such - and so even slight mistakes turned deadly. The Walther turbine subs suffered from the same sorts of problems - workable in theory but not in practice. Another British monstrosity was the M-class subs armed with battleship-sized cannon.

[felixg91]

Yeah! Oldpop what causes a trip into port on a ship, usually causes a fast final trip to terra-firma in a plane, absolutely true! Its another thread but aircraft accidents killed a lot of "valuable" people over the years, Molders, De La Perrier, to name just 2 in ww2 on the German side who's presence was probably keenly felt.


Yeah they lost an M class if I remember right with all hands...and yep the K's were a complicated error prone disaster for the reasons you cite. Oh and I forgot about the Walther boats...with the Hydro-perox engines....?

Thanks the info on the Kriegsmarine ships dovetails with what I remember, and their Sterns! The stern structure on all the larger German ships was incredibly weak and an inherent design flaw several were blown off during the war but I cant rmember which...one of the Deutschlands, and Gneisenau and maybe one of the Hippers all had stern structural problems I think.

And the Spurious, Curious, and Outrageous all were really weak in the hull when first built and commissioned, they all were taken in hand and had structural strengthening added later, heavy sea's and firing salvo's caused problems.

Hang on gotta be more. Non combat losses just are not as interesting as combat caused ones.

Thanks
Felix

[oldpop2000]

Well, its raining cats and dogs here, so I got inventive. Granddaughter is sick and mommy is taking care of her so I have four days off. I did some clipping for all of you about German destroyer engineering. It maybe a little disjointed but this is the best I can do, at least for now. I clipped the pieces, converted the whole documentation to PDF so enjoy.

German Destroyer engineering.pdf (781.35 KB)

[oldpop2000]

Ok, I've got some more for you. German Light Cruiser machinery. BTW, if I sound like this is hard..... it isn't. I taught IT classes for the Navy and made my own lesson plans, so I know how to do it, I am just a little lazy at seventy years old. I hope you all enjoy this material, because I enjoy passing it too you.


German Light Cruisers.pdf (913.49 KB)


Update: I found this link on Air Independent Propulsion which includes the Walther turbines, hope this is interesting - www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_13/propulsion.htm


I hope no one minds expanding this subject because this I an excellent area of interest.

[felixg92]

Hi Oldpop, hope your well buddy!

Well subs do seem to be a type of warship with an extraordianarily high problem index. But to be fair and i am a sub lover, and the bottom of the ocean is indeed considered more hazardous than the vacumn of space. I was awed by two facts regarding warships.

Up until spacecraft and nuclear submarines, battleships are the most intricate technically intensive things man ever built. Forget the pyramids, they dont move, or fight. But i bet we cold mount at least 18 inchers on em. LOL.

And i am dissapointed i am not thinking of any other classes that were so totally noteworthy as being unreliable broken badly designed poorly provisioned pieces of naval detritus.

Sorry.