Opinions on the Tegetthoff Class

the launch Franz Ferdinand revoked his participation on the launch and ordered that the ceremony should be modest.222 After the launch the work on the Prinz Eugen slowed down. In August 1913, it was estimated that the ship would be completed in March 1914 but later it proved to be too optimistic. On 14 May 1914, on her 2 hours full power trial the Prinz Eugen attained an average speed of 20.41 knots while her machinery produced 27,183 SHP. Th e third Trieste built dreadnought was commissioned under the command of Linienschiff skapitän Johann Graf von und zu Firmian on 8 July 1914. Th e Navy took on her on 17 July 1914.

Th e Trieste built sisters had several modifi cations during their career, but these were only minor improvements. Th ese ships were not perfectly identical as there were minor diff erences between them, for example, in the form of the large air vent of the machinery room or in the form of the caps of the boat cranes.223 Th e fi rst three units of the Tegetthoff class originally had torpedo nets imported from Britain. Th e fourth member, the Szent István, was commissioned without torpedo nets, because after the outbreak of the war it was now impossible to import torpedo nets from Britain. In 1917, torpedo nets and their booms were removed from the STT built units of the class. Th is was done because German experiences of the Battle of Jutland/Skagerrak showed that a hit on the net could detach it which posed a threat to the screws. As mentioned previously, the fi rst two units of the class originally had no couplers in their gun turrets; these were added in 1913/1914. During the war the metal lids of the turret gunports were replaced with blast bags. Also, during the war Viribus Unitis, Tegetthoff and Prinz Eugen were armed with four 7 cm/50 AA guns224 which were mounted on the roofs of the superimposed gun turrets. With the improvements on the fi re control equipment, we deal not here because this topic is discussed in detail in the last chapter of this book. After the outbreak of the war pieces of old torpedo netting on metal frames were fi tted over the funnel caps for providing some protection against aerial bombs. Viribus Unitis and Tegetthoff were originally painted in the “Montecuccoligrün” (olive green) livery. In July 1914, both ships were painted in the new “Hausblau” (light grey) livery. Prinz Eugen was commissioned painted light grey. After the outbreak of the war gun turret and conning tower roofs were painted dark grey.225 On 8 April 1916, the Marinesektion ordered the commanders of the four Tegetthoff class battleships to write a report on their ship and to make recommendations for future battleship building. Th e reports were written in the summer and fall of 1916. Th e report on the Viribus Unitis was the most detailed and well written among them.226 In this chapter we deal with the reports on the three Trieste built ships.

Th e report on the Viribus Unitis bore the date 2 July 1916. In the introduction the ship’s commander, Linienschiff skapitän Kamillo Teuschl, established that he could write only of experiences of the everyday routine of the ship because there were no real combat experiences. He stated that the time of clearing for action was too long and the ventilation of the ship was insuffi cient in general.227 He stated also that the spaces for the offi cers, NCOs and men were too small and the ship was more cramped than the older battleships. Th e galley of the crew was too small and there were too few toilets for the crew.228

Teuschl considered the torpedo tubes in the bow and the stern absolutely useless. He proposed that the aft turbine-driven dynamos be given an auxiliary condenser. He felt it necessary to obtain batteries for the telephones and electric bells as auxiliary power supply sources. He pointed out that there was no central control position for the drainage and that the communication devices of the drainage control positions were incomplete, having not been installed between some positions during the building of the ship. Th e fl ooding time of the main magazines was sixteen minutes which he considered unacceptable.229 Th ere was an unprotected slot between the barbette and the gunhouse – this was also mentioned in the other three ships’ reports. Th e deck fi ttings hindered the free movement of the empty cases ejected from the turrets, particularly in the case of the turret No IV (the lower aft turret). Th e overly large and thinly armored cupolas for the rangefi nders on the turret roofs imposed the danger that an otherwise ricocheting projectile could peeled back the thin turret roof armor. To cap it all, the turret rangefi nders were found to be useless.230

Th e next part of the report is the most quoted but also maybe somewhat misinterpreted. On the basis

— 75 —

33 Th e turret ventilation system of the Tegetthoff class battleships. Th e two arrows indicate the two inlets

of this part of the report many printed and online publications question the combat value of the whole class, stating that the triple turrets became uninhabitable under battle conditions after a short time due to the lack of ventilation. Th e ventilators of the gun turrets sucked the fresh air from the Oberdeck (upper deck). Th e report writes that under battle conditions these air vents on the Oberdeck were closed to avoid the sucking in the propellant gases which had the following consequence: “after a short time the oil lamps burned no more due to the shortage of oxygen.” Th e ventilation of the gun barrels was also insuffi cient. Beside this paragraph there is a great S. O. S. and a handwritten remark: “Can it somehow be repaired yet?” Th ere is also a large checkmark.231 Th e latter means either that the Navy could fi nd some solution, or after a closer examination, they found out that the fl aw was not necessarily in the ventilation system. Linienschiff skapitän Edmund Grassber ger, who commanded the Viribus Unitis at the time of the Bombardment of Ancona, in his report did not mention any problem with the turret ventilation.232 In their 1916 reports the commanders of the other three units also did not mention such a serious problem.

In fact, the closing of the air vents on the Oberdeck of the turret ventilation did not mean the shutdown of the ventilation itself. In the Plansammlung of the Kriegsarchiv in Vienna there is an original STT plan of the turret ventilation system. Th e 50 cm diameter air duct of the ventilation ran down from the Oberdeck outside the barbette to the underside of the lowest part of the revolving stalk of the turret joining it in the axle of rotation. Th is air duct had two closeable inlets, one on the Oberdeck at the base of the barbette not far from the centerline of the ship. Th e second inlet was one level below, on the Batteriedeck, and when the inlet on the upper deck was closed by a watertight lid the system was sucking the air from here.233 Th e ventilator of 3 cubic meters per second capacity was on the Mitteldeck, one level below the Batteriedeck. Th e operation of the turret ventilation was the following: the large ventilator pressed the air into the bottom of the revolving stalk, while in the gunhouse the three gun barrel ventilators were running, sucking out air and the propellant gases out of the gunhouse. Th e diff erence of air pressure between the bottom of the stalk and the gunhouse helped the circulation of fresh air throughout the mounting.

Th ere is another document dealing with the turret ventilation: the report on the overheating of gun turret No III of the Szent István which is dated 9 September 1916. From this report we know that in bad weather or during fi ring the air vents on the upper deck were closed but the ventilation was not shut down as it sucked in air from the Batteriedeck as described above, so the system was the same as on the STT built ships. In the case of the gun turret No III of the Szent István the cause of the problem was that the air duct of this turret was too close to a heat source and warmed the air going into the duct.234

Teuschl in his report considered insuffi cient the end on fi re capacity of the 15 cm guns and unsatisfactory the handling of the empty cases in the 15 cm battery. In his opinion the voice pipes and cables in the battery were too vulnerable. Th e in-

— 76 —

sulation of the bulkheads of the 15 cm magazines was insuffi cient. He wrote that there were places where the magazine walls were so hot that they could not be touched by bare hands. Th e cooling of the magazines was also insuffi cient, especially in summer when one of the two refrigeration plants cooled the provision rooms exclusively. He considered the 7 cm guns useless against the modern destroyers and torpedo-boats and he proposed that they be replaced by 9 or 10 cm guns.235

Teuschl considered the conning tower unnecessarily high and the 150 mm armor of the lowest two levels and the thin fl oors to be too weak. He stated that a hit on the lower part of the conning tower would have catastrophic consequences. Beside this line in the report there is a handwritten “True”. Th e situation in the case of the aft conning tower was even worse because its understructure was only 15 mm thick.236

On the machinery, a separate comprehensive report was written. Th is report refers to two earlier reports on the machinery which are not found in the fi le. Th e existing report contains only proposals of minor importance. Every commander condemned the fact that there were no armored gratings in the funnels and considered that the emergency exits of the boiler and machinery rooms to be too narrow.237

Th e commander of the Tegetthoff, Linienschiff skapitän Franz von Holub, started his report with a mention of the cramped conditions. He proposed not to cut doors in the watertight bulkheads on the future battleships. Th ese watertight doors had been sealed at the outbreak of the war, so they were unusable but still weakened the structure of the bulkheads. He considered the torpedo protection insuffi cient. He proposed to remove the torpedo nets considering their weight and questionable value. As the other commanders, Holub considered the ventilation insuffi cient. As every commander, he mentioned the unprotected slot between the barbette and the gunhouse. He also considered the 7 cm guns to be useless and he proposed 9 cm guns be substituted.238

Th e commander of the Prinz Eugen, Linienschiff skapitän Johann von und zu Firmian, pointed out that the armament of the ship was too heavy for the displacement. Th e units of the class were bow heavy and had low freeboard. He considered that an unlucky hit at the bow could be disastrous for the ship. He proposed for the future battleships be given a raised forecastle deck and omitting the heavy ram. He also considered the underwater protection insuffi cient and condemned the doors cut in the watertight bulkheads. He considered the ventilation insuffi cient and proposed to move the air vents to other places because the ventilation easily could suck in smoke. He proposed to solve the operation of the DC ventilators by utilizing AC, so that the ships in harbor could use the normal electric net instead of running their dynamos.239

Firmian also mentioned the slot between the barbette and the gunhouse. He considered the armor of turret roofs too thin and he proposed to reinforce them. He proposed also to interchange the magazines of the 30.5 projectiles and the 30.5 cm cartridges. He questioned the ability of the main magazine bulkheads to withstand the water pressure when the magazines had to be fl ooded. He considered the 7 cm guns useless and he proposed 9 cm guns instead of them as had the other commanders. He considered the bow and the stem torpedo tube useless for a battleship.240

Th e greatest critic of the Tegetthoff class was Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz. As it was mentioned previously, in April 1909 he strongly criticized the thin armor and the layout of the torpedo protection system of the Austro-Hungarian battleship design which Koudelka showed him. Tirpitz also often criticized these battleships later, mainly because their supposed weak survivability. Even in the fall of 1913, he made critical remarks on the fi rst dreadnought class of the Dual Monarchy.241

By these reports emerges a battleship which had many design fl aws, which was over armed for her displacement, which was unstable and unseaworthy and which had a fl awed torpedo protection system. Th is battleship was also cramped and had many ergonomic issues. Th e Navy was well aware most of these problems even when the ships were still under construction and tried to avoid them during the design process of the next battleships.

— 77 —