Jump to content

Wespe-class gunboat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Parsecboy (talk | contribs) at 19:50, 5 October 2024 (→Armament and armor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Natter in Kiel
Class overview
NameWespe class
BuildersAG Weser, Bremen
OperatorsImperial German Navy
Built1875–1881
In service1885–1912
In commission1876–1900
Completed11
General characteristics
TypeGunboat
Displacement
Length46.4 m (152 ft 3 in)
Beam10.6 m (34 ft 9 in)
Draft3.2 to 3.4 m (10 ft 6 in to 11 ft 2 in)
Installed power
Propulsion
Speed10.4 knots (19.3 km/h; 12.0 mph)
Complement
  • 3 officers
  • 73–85 enlisted
Armament1 × 30.5 cm (12 in) MRK L/22 gun
Armor
  • Belt: 102 to 203 mm (4 to 8 in)
  • Barbette: 203 mm (8 in)
  • Deck: 44 mm (1.7 in)

The Wespe-class gunboats were a class of 11 armored gunboats of the Imperial German Navy. They were meant for the defence of the North Sea coast. AG Weser in Bremen built them between 1874 and 1881. The boats were often in reserve or used for training purposes.

Background

In Germany, the first plans for coastal defense centered on the use of monitors, e.g. SMS Arminius of about 1,800 t. When the torpedo was developed, the use of such big warships seemed unnecessary. Smaller vessels to defend the torpedo barriers seemed enough.[1] It was initially believed that the German Baltic Sea coast did not require gunboats. Here, all but two of the harbors had parallel moles. These stretched into the sea on both sides of the fairway. With torpedo barriers and heavy coastal batteries to protect these, it was thought unnecessary to have gunboats to keep the enemy at bay.[2] By the time the ships entered service, the naval command realized that gunboats would be needed to defend the Baltic ports, and so several of the ships were stationed in the area.[3])

On the German North Sea coast and the east coast of Schleswig-Holstein the situation was quite different. Here the Eider, Elbe, Weser, Jade, and Ems exited into shallow waters with many shoals and islands. If the enemy could pass the outer limits of these shallow waters, he could safely anchor and prepare an attack or landing.[2] Vessels defending these areas therefore needed a shallow draft. They also had to defend the local torpedo barriers. Here, these had to be so far from the coast that they could not to be defended by coastal artillery.[4]

HMS Arrow

After concluding that on the North Sea coast, monitors of about 2,000 t could be replaced by much smaller vessels, the next question was whether these small vessels should be armored or not. England, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Russia opted for unarmored gunboats.[1] The 'unarmored' school of thought proposed small unarmored gunboats with a single heavy gun. It noted that in these circumstances, these boats offered a small target, while their guns could penetrate up to 20 cm (7.9 in) of armor at medium distances. Due to their very shallow draft, these small gunboats could also evade ram attacks. A further advantage was the limited cost of these boats. Which of course also meant that one could buy more of these.[4] This led to the Ant-class gunboats of about 250 t and the Ever-class gunboats of 200 t.

The German Navy school of thought said that an unarmored vessel could only be useful when it was covered by natural heights or a mole. In all other circumstances, it risked swift destruction. The threat by enemy capital ships was of course obvious. A less obvious threat was that posed by steam launches (Dampfbeibooten). These of course had much smaller guns, but these light guns were sufficient to destroy unarmored ships. These light guns were also much more in line with the size of the vessel on which they were mounted. This caused that the launches were way more stable at sea, relating in a far higher chance to hit the target.[4]

Design

After the German Navy opted for armored gunboats, it could issue some specifications for new gunboats. The navy required the use of a gun that could penetrate 20 cm of armor, even at long distances. In turn, the boats should themselves also be protected 20 cm of armor. The gunboats should furthermore be seaworthy and have a shallow draft. The navy required only a limited speed for the vessels.[5]

General characteristics and machinery

Plan and profile of the Wespe class in their original configuration

The Wespe-class gunboats' hulls were made of wrought iron, using transverse iron frame construction. They were 45.4 meters (148 ft 11 in) long at the waterline and 46.4 m (152 ft 3 in) long overall. They had a beam of 10.6 m (34 ft 9 in), a depth of hold of 4.10 m (13 ft 5 in), and a draft of 3.2 to 3.4 m (10 ft 6 in to 11 ft 2 in). They displaced 1,098 metric tons (1,081 long tons; 1,210 short tons) as designed and up to 1,163 t (1,145 long tons; 1,282 short tons) at full load. The ships' hull was divided into ten watertight compartments and a double hull on the bottom side that extended for fifty-five percent of its length.[6][7]

The ships featured a light iron superstructure that served to make the boats more seaworthy. The section before the gun emplacement served as accommodation for the crew. The aft section served as quarters for the officers and non-commissioned officers. Behind the gun, there was a deckhouse, which gave a dry access to the machinery and the officer's quarters. They had no rigging, only a signals mast The ships had a crew that consisted of three offiers and seventy-three to eighty-five enlisted men. While serving as a flagship, an additional three officers and eight enlisted men for a commander's staff would be added.[8]

Steering was controlled via a single rudder. The ships were very unseaworthy; they rolled violently and the gun could not be operated in sea state 4 or higher. The ships tended to take on large quantities of water, and suffered from weather helm. Maneuverability suffered from unpredictability, and once a turn was begun, it was difficult to change course.[9]

Power was provided by a pair of 2-cylinder double-expansion steam engines that drove a pair of four-bladed screw propellers that were 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) wide. The engines were placed in a single engine room, though a watertight bulkhead divided them. Four cylindrical fire-tube boilers provided steam to the engines, and they were vented through a single, tall funnel. The propulsion system was rated to produce a top speed of 9 knots (17 km/h; 10 mph) from 700 PS (690 ihp), though all members of the class exceeded it by more than a knot, with top speeds ranging from {cvt|10.4|to|11.2|kn}}. The ships carried 40 t (39 long tons; 44 short tons) of coal for the boilers, which provided a cruising radius of 700 nautical miles (1,300 km; 810 mi) at a speed of 7 knots (13 km/h; 8.1 mph). When speed increased to 10 knots, the range fell to 450 nmi (830 km; 520 mi).[3][7]

Armament and armor

Wespe as she was in about 1900

The Wespes were armed with a 30.5 cm (12 in) MRL L/22 built-up gun on a pivot carriage which put its trunnions 3.7 m (12 ft) above the water. The gun was supplied with a total of thirty-eight shells. It had a range of elevation form -5 degrees to 20 degrees, and a maximum range of 10,000 m (11,000 yd).[6][7] The gun had a limited arc of train, and aiming was primarily accomplished by turning the ship in the direction of the enemy.[10] The ships also had a ram bow.[11]

Later in their careers, the Wespes received two 8.7 cm (3.4 in) L/24 built-up guns and two 37 mm (1.5 in) Hotchkiss revolver cannon. They were also fitted with two 35 cm (14 in) torpedo tubes in bow-mounted launchers, submerged below the waterline.[9][12]

The armor belt was 203 mm (8 in) thick in the central portion. It continued at that same thickness along the whole bow section, but tapered to first to 152 mm (6 in) and then to 102 mm (4 in) at the stern. A layer of teak that was 210 mm (8.3 in) thick backed the belt armor.[9][13] This was because the Wespes were planned to engage the enemy with their bow forward, instead of with the broadside. The gun was placed behind a circular armored barbette of 203 mm (8 in) thickness, also backed by 210 mm of teak. The deck of the Wespes was protected by a layer of 22 mm (1 in) thick wrought iron atop another layer of 28 mm (1.1 in) iron armor. Later in their careers, a small, armored conning tower with 20 mm (0.79 in) thick sides was installed atop the superstructure.[9][14]

At the time, the Wespe class combined the heaviest gun in the German navy with an armor protection that was comparable to that of many ironclad battleships. It was thought this would allow the boats to engage most enemy capital ships on distances at which most of the enemy's guns could not penetrate the boat's armor. In the coastal area, the shallow-draft boats could then evade again in spite of their low speed.[15]

Ships

Scorpion in Kiel in the 1890s
Construction data
Name Builder Laid down Launched Commissioned
Wespe AG Weser, Bremen May 1875[16] 6 July 1876[17] 26 November 1876[9]
Viper May 1875[18] 21 September 1876[13] 27 March 1877[9]
Biene 1876[19] 2 December 1876[13] 20 August 1877[9]
Mücke 1876[19] 5 May 1877[13] 25 February 1878[9]
Scorpion July 1876[20] 17 May 1877[13] 12 December 1877[9]
Basilisk September 1877[21] 1878[22] 20 August 1880[9]
Camaeleon 1878[19] 21 December 1878[9] 10 November 1879[9]
Crocodill 1878[19] 19 September 1879[9] 20 September 1880[9]
Salamander September 1878[23] 6 January 1880[23] 4 September 1883[9]
Natter July 1879[23] 29 September 1880[23] 20 May 1881[9]
Hummel July 1879[23] 12 February 1881[23] 22 May 1882[9]

Service history

Mücke sometime in the 1880s to 1897

In 1881, the North Sea station had: Viper, Mücke, Scorpion, Salamander, Natter, and Wespe. The Baltic Sea station had: Basilisk, Camaeleon, Crocodill, Hummel, and Biene.[24]

Notes

  1. ^ a b Kronenfels 1881, p. 110.
  2. ^ a b Kronenfels 1881, p. 111.
  3. ^ a b Wislicenus 1896, p. 134.
  4. ^ a b c Kronenfels 1881, p. 112.
  5. ^ Kronenfels 1881, p. 113.
  6. ^ a b Kronenfels 1881, p. 114.
  7. ^ a b c Gröner, pp. 137–138.
  8. ^ Kronenfels 1881, p. 117–119.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Gröner, p. 138.
  10. ^ Lyon, p. 261.
  11. ^ Kronenfels 1881, p. 118.
  12. ^ Wislicenus 1896, p. 133, 134.
  13. ^ a b c d e Dislere 1877, p. 125.
  14. ^ Kronenfels 1881, p. 117.
  15. ^ Kronenfels 1881, p. 116.
  16. ^ Hildebrand, Röhr, & Steinmetz Vol. 8, p. 69.
  17. ^ "Occasional Notes". Pall Mall Gazette. No. 3564. London. 21 June 1876.
  18. ^ Hildebrand, Röhr, & Steinmetz Vol. 8, p. 48.
  19. ^ a b c d Gröner, p. 137.
  20. ^ Hildebrand, Röhr, & Steinmetz Vol. 7, p. 150.
  21. ^ Hildebrand, Röhr, & Steinmetz Vol. 2, p. 40.
  22. ^ Barnes 1890, p. 296.
  23. ^ a b c d e f Hannoverscher Kurier 31 Oct 1882.
  24. ^ "Wilhelmshaven, 28. August". Hannoverscher Kurier. 29 August 1881.

References

  • Barnes, F.K. (1890). "Part II British and Foreign Armoured and Unarmoured Ships". Brassey's Naval Annual. Portsmouth: J. Griffin and Co.
  • Dislere, P. (1877). Die Panzerschiffe der neuesten Zeit [The Ironclads of the Modern Era] (in German). Carl Gerold's Sohn, Pola.
  • Gröner, Erich (1990). German Warships: 1815–1945. Vol. I: Major Surface Vessels. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-0-87021-790-6.
  • Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert & Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe: Biographien: ein Spiegel der Marinegeschichte von 1815 bis zur Gegenwart [The German Warships: Biographies: A Reflection of Naval History from 1815 to the Present] (in German). Vol. 2. Ratingen: Mundus Verlag. ISBN 978-3-8364-9743-5.
  • Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert & Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe: Biographien – ein Spiegel der Marinegeschichte von 1815 bis zur Gegenwart [The German Warships: Biographies − A Reflection of Naval History from 1815 to the Present] (in German). Vol. 3. Ratingen: Mundus Verlag. ISBN 978-3-7822-0211-4.
  • Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert & Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe: Biographien – ein Spiegel der Marinegeschichte von 1815 bis zur Gegenwart [The German Warships: Biographies − A Reflection of Naval History from 1815 to the Present] (in German). Vol. 4. Ratingen: Mundus Verlag. ISBN 978-3-7822-0382-1.
  • Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert & Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe: Biographien – ein Spiegel der Marinegeschichte von 1815 bis zur Gegenwart [The German Warships: Biographies − A Reflection of Naval History from 1815 to the Present] (in German). Vol. 6. Ratingen: Mundus Verlag. ISBN 3-7822-0237-6.
  • Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert & Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe: Biographien – ein Spiegel der Marinegeschichte von 1815 bis zur Gegenwart [The German Warships: Biographies − A Reflection of Naval History from 1815 to the Present] (in German). Vol. 7. Ratingen: Mundus Verlag. OCLC 310653560.
  • Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert & Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe: Biographien – ein Spiegel der Marinegeschichte von 1815 bis zur Gegenwart [The German Warships: Biographies − A Reflection of Naval History from 1815 to the Present] (in German). Vol. 8. Ratingen: Mundus Verlag.
  • Kronenfels, J.F. von (1881). Das schwimmende Flottenmaterial der Seemächte [The Warships of the Naval Powers] (in German). A. Hartleben's Verlag, Wien.
  • Lyon, David (1979). "Germany". In Gardiner, Robert; Chesneau, Roger & Kolesnik, Eugene M. (eds.). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860–1905. Greenwich: Conway Maritime Press. pp. 240–265. ISBN 978-0-85177-133-5.
  • Wislicenus, Georg (1896). Deutschlands Seemacht: sonst und jetzt nebst einem Überblick über die Geschichte der Seefahrt aller Völker [Germany's Sea Power: Then and Now, an Overview of the Maritime History of all Nations] (in German). Grunow, Leipzig.
  • "Berlin, 30. Oct". Hannoverscher Kurier (in German). Hannover. 29 August 1881.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Wespe-Klasse.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wespe-class_gunboat&oldid=1249599822"