Brittish didn't sink the Bismark

[RRAM]

Originally posted by Kelly[KGN]
Hi,

okay, i think your answer is worth a reply.


First, if your first passion is airwar and second naval warfare, it's the other way with me, naval warfar is my passion, and brought me to airsims, because actually there aren't any worthy naval sims around...at least online.

I know warships1.com well, and think you are right, it's one of the only sources I would quote, but it only shows stats.
And I don't like stats, because numbers show nothing, only the overview about all numbers could say a bit...but still not everything.

eheheh, glad you think the same about the mentioned site. However, I'm not in agreement with you, warships1.com gives you WAY more than "just" stats. The tech section (INRO) is a compendium of incredibly well written and explained essays.

For instance ,regarding the Bismarck (and kriegsmarine in general) issue you'd like to read the following links:

http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-044.htm

http://www.warships1.com/GERbb08_Bismarck_history.htm

http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-070.htm

there are more, but those three are quite good in describing the design problems the germans had, a good summary of the whole bismarck action, and an essay about all or nothing armor and the nasty effect of not being protected by such a system.

All other stats are...uhm...funny.
Comparing armor for example...if you really think the thickness shows everything you are totally wrong.
You have also to compare the special type of steel used for it.
Talking bout japanese ships, the steel used for japanese ships was/is known to be a low quality steel, which had not the same abillity to withstand penetrations like (for exampel) US or German steel.
That decreased with the war for german steel due to lack of resources. But we're comparing stats.
So the thinner belt armor of the Bismarck class was made out of better steel than the thicker belt of the Yamato. What does it say?
Only one thing, that stats won't work all the time, and you can't compare the plain thickness because of different material.
So, which armor was better? I dunno, please don't tell me you know.
:-)

[/b]


The Japanese armor was much more thick and much better placed. Hands down, the best armored ship of the two was the japanese one ,both by sheer numbers and by its placement

I don't get fixated on the numbers of the warships1.com page, I just see them as a guide and a reference. In fact, only when you see the armor scheme drawings of a given ship is when you realize how well/bad protected it was.

In this particular case, Bismarck's armor placement was focused on very close range slugfests, in several layers and with massive use of internally angled armor to prevent hits penetrating into the inner vitals of the ship. this it did VERY well, but the design (product of the german armoring principles used in WWI, when the theory said that any confrontation would be in the North Sea and at very close ranges ) was fatally blundered for keeping a good Inmunity Zone at longer ranges because the horizontal deck armor was deficient both in thickness and placement.

Other detail you migh want to check (if you've got the Bismarck's armor scheme on hand), is that the placement of the main strenght armored deck was UNDER the waterline,not OVER it, thus it could lead to serious flooding problems if penetrated.

Finally you should focus, too, in the fact that a ship's calification as having good or bad armor was not just the ability to keep the ship afloat, but IN A FIGHTING STATUS. Bismarck was bug-ridden, with many vital equipment left unprotected, or covered by a very weak armor. Not to mention the problems with the turret interdependance, showed when the 16' shell disabled both turrets at the same time.

all in all Bismarck had a BADLY placed armor. It was a well-built strong-structure ship, yes, and it standed an incredible pounding...but the problem was that it COULDNT fight after hit, because it was just so vulnerable to be "soft killed"

One the other hand you are somewhat right, when you say the Bismarck class had flaws, yes it had. But to say KGV was the overall better ship is BS.

please elaborate...why do you think the Bismarck was better than the KGV class?. Please aport details, because I just see a much lighter ship, with a better overall protection a comparable main battery and a much better designed secondary battery. Not to mention that at 28.5knots at full displacement,  the KGV was almost as fast as the Bismarck under loaded conditions.

And just ignoring quotes of people who fought that ship is a little ignorant, I don't quote a politican, are some marketing guy, I quote the man who basically chased, fought and sunk her.
If you really believe some internet source has deeper insight than Adm. Tovey, go ahead.
At least he didn't shared your opinion about KGV vs. Bismarck. I would have to look what he said exactly, and it would be prolly anyway a bit wrong, for I don't have the quote in english, but it was basically, that he said, he won't think about what had happened if the KGV met Bismarck in her full operational state, and not wrecked.
Please give a quote of a person with different point of view and higher reputation in naval stuff and I will think again about my point of view. But plain stats, and internet hobbyproject are not interesting for me.

Look, the problem is that probably Tovey never knew the full range of design bugs the Bismarck had. All he knew whas that he was facing a ship that in his third salvo had found the range on the hood, and that in the fifth salvo it had blown the pride of the Royal Navy out of the water.

Mix that with the German propaganda, the British own propaganda when the ship was sunk, and the fact that Tovey HAD been there to see the ammount of pounding the german ship had taken before going down. Add to that the legendary hunt for the Tirpitz the British carried until 1944... and Is only natural to hear him saying that they were amazing ships...

During many years after the war was ended ,the myth of the "mighty bismarck" endured, and still is very present today in the collective mind. Is an example of well placed propaganda, but the objective facts are impossible to deny once you've got Bismarck's armor scheme drawing in front of your eyes, and knowing about the vital cabling unprotected, or the triple screw configuration efficiency and damage standing problems, etc etc etc.

Btw, where the hell you found information about Bismarck class being overweighted?
It correct that german guns were overweighted, which was a big problem for all german ships, exspecially for the later destroyers.
But the ships self were not.
Only because the official first plan shows a different number than later was measured doesn't mean the plans didn't change.
Why you think Tirpitz had a higher draught than Bismarck? Simply because the put on more weight and that pushed the hull deeper into the water?

[[/B]


Tirpitz had more armor than the Bismarck in several places, also it corrected some of the troubles the Bis had (AAA battery fire control, between others). It also featured deck torpedo launchers, wich added some weight. All in all, at full displacement, Tirpitz was around 1000 tons heavier than Bismarck, but not because the germans thought the design was not overloaded .


About why do I think it was overweight, well, I've taken part in just too many discussions in the BBvsBB board in warships1.com...to sum it up...

Bismarck's problem was not just it was overweight, the problem was the many side effects it had. Bismarck was designed to sail at around 30 knots, and to have the belt armor at a given place. At full load the ship barely could afford 29 knots and the belt armor protection fell under the water line...

Why it was overweight?. Well, because the german design teams had an insane obsession for gadgetry and for overcomplex equipment. There was also a big tendence in the german design teams  to underestimate the displacement of a given design off the drawing board. The Scharnhorsts were overweight, the Hippers surpassed the designed displacements, the Bismarcks did it too.

When the german kriegsmarine saw the problem that was coming in, they tried to fix it by emergency measures... just for instance, to save weight on the forward part of the ship (the Bismarck was a very nose heavy design, another bad feature the Scharnhorsts also shared), the KM removed the optical rangefinder from the Anton turret (and the Foreign ministry sold it to the Soviets, BTW)...needless to say that was a very weak measure and the Bismarck was a nose heavy wet ship during all of its operational life.

Please read some information from a german shipyard.
On the other hand, I could also allege that KGV made her mile also with little weight, so she must been also slower fitted out for war, right?

the problem here is that KGV achieved 29.5 knots in her trial, and its claimed top speed while loaded was 28.5 knots, mate

You can say much about german ingeneers, but not that the german habbit of bureaucracy did forget some information.
The mile was taken in full war state, and not in some special event to impress somebody.

[/b]

not as I recall, gotta dig to look for the information to back my affirmation, but as far as I recall, Bismarck did its tests on light load state (wich means between 42 and 45000 tons of displacement). Full load tests by that time were ONLY standard in the US.Navy trials, other navies did them under light status.

[RRAM]

I follow here, reply was too long for the board to accept it

And something about my own point of view, I don't say the Bismarck class was the ubership so many see it in them. It was some kind of a racing horse, with great abillities, and some dangeous flaws (the light protected powersupply of the main turrets for example) while the KGV (to stick to that comparison) was imho some kind of a working horse.

[/b]

the problem was that ,ton by ton, the KGV was a more efficient ship than the Bismarck...and I repeat that the bismarck was NOT that fast. The Scharhorsts indeed were racing "horses" (also badly bug-ridden designs, tho, even worse than Bismarck), but the Bismarck was about the only units in the German navy designed to challenge the best battleships of the Royal navy in an one vs one encounter...

and it wasn't good for that purpose. As simple as that.

KGV was the better choose for the RN, Bismarck for the KM, because both ships were planed to fullfill different duties.

I disagree. Bismarck was NOT designed to be a commerce raider (had it been, its range would've been much different ). From the conception the Bismarcks were ships designed to be able to fight the british and french capital ships in equality of conditions. And that, they couldn't achieve. All that Bismarck could do was run and hope that no shell disabled any vital piece of equipment, or that no damage was sustained by its weak ,fatally blundered 3-screw pope...

I stand on what I say. It was a damned 52k ton ship with 8  BF 15' Guns on board, and one can't take such a ship lightly...

but it was a bad design, no matter how you look at it.

lol. forgot the question about the firecontrol.

Sorry.

Visual firecontrol was in both case absolutly excellent. Not much more to say about it.
Some nightbattles in early war battles proof that well for japan.

Radar guided firecontrol is another case, while the japanese simply seem to ignore the fact that there is something like radar, the german navy was very aware of it. Although some wise guy in Berlin didn't understand what it means and let that part of sience totally out of sight - at least for the navy, they used later some kind of luftwaffen radar which was changed for ships.
Prinz Eugen got one of those totally oversized systems late in war, but if I remember right it was replaced because it couldn't work proper at sea situation.

Scharnhorst was even ordered to turn her anyway weaker radar off at xmas '43.

And you are right if you say Iowa class had one of the (if not the) best firecontrol.
Would be interesting to compare it with the late KGV class firecontrol or the successor class of the KGV class.

couple of notes...

-the world's best radar guided fire control in 1944 was British (Scharnhorst was sunk only by radar guided ,blind fire)

-you might want to read this link to understand why germany never gave too much thought at the idea of fitting the KM's ship with anything better but a simple search radar: http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNGER_Radar.htm

to sum it up: german navy was focused on hard-to-find commerce raiders. By turning on a radar, a raider would give away its position, thus making unnaceptable the use of that equipment. And no nation spends resources and time on an equipment that's not going to get used.


- Scharnhorst's radar was probably rendered inoperative by a shell hit in one of the prior engagements with the british destroyers and cruisers in the evening before she sank. Where did you get the information about her being ordered to turn down radar?...first time I read something like that...

[Kelly[KGN]]

Just a briefly answer about the order to turn off radar, and it might ( I doubt ) tell also a bit about the information I got. My great grandfather sailed on Scharnhorst!
He wasn't on board at her last action because he was one o very few that were allowed to fly home for xmas.
While you quote internet sources and books, I quote real memories, only one side of course, but I don't go into details about ships from other navys than the german.

For example, most of your statements are partly right, but not 100%, when I say Bismarck was designed for another duty than KGV you talk about mearchant raider...did I say mearchant raider?
No.
KGV class was build to protect the british sealanes, in bigger numbers and it had to be a cheaper ship than Bismarck, while Bismarck was built to sink any british BB in a 1on1 fight, which she was able to, doesn't matter what you say.
And Tovey wasn't scared about the Bismarck because of her superiority, he was because he saw KGV flaws. If you talk about the 4x2 gun turrets of Bismarck, which you say was a bad design, please also quote how often the great 4 barrel turret design of KGV wasn't operational in an "all or nothing fight".
THAT was what scared Tovey.

And you don't see some points, Hipper class wasn't overweighted.
It was officially planed for 10.000 tons, yes, but it's design was never ever planed to stay at that weight. Hipper class was planed and built at 16.000 tons.
The same way Gneisenau class was done, officially smaller, but designed and built another way.

And to proof your sources, Scharnhorst wasn't sunk without line of sight.
If not Scharnhorst wouldn't have been able to fire back.
Duke of York and Scharnhorst even had a line of sight so good that Adm. Fraser ordered to bring more distance between them, because at point blank they saw the shells recoil from Scharnhorst's beltarmor.

Did I mention not everything you can read is true? Exspecially in times of the internet.

[Hammy]

The Only thing that matters to me is the bloody thing is on the seabed where it deserves to be and it was as a direct result of British Action so there!

[Kelly[KGN]]

Hi,

I think dead soldiers are dead soldiers, nationality doesn't matter.

[Angus]

Was the Bismarck a floating piece of crap? Forgive me Rram, but I do not wholly agree.
After all, she took a lot of pounding. Many other ships took less.
The Roma? Barham? Richileu? Prince of Wales?

Was the Bismarck then the best Uber Ship ever built?
Forgive me all Bismarck Uber fans, but the Bismarck had her vices that lead to her destruction.

Was the Bismarck lucky to sink HMS Hood?
Yes, quite so really, a few more minutes would have made some difference, the gap between the ships closing rapidly.
Not to mention the British targeting the wrong ship in the beginning (Prinz Eugen being smaller and much harder to hit)

Which one had the better gunnery control?
Hard to say, - at the range used their achivements were similar.
I have seen statements that both had better gunnery controls, and as I have not the knowledge to judge that, what I still know is that the British had more practise. I vote for British.
BTW, I belive the British hold the world record in hitting a moving ship, HMS Warspite (1916 built?) hit an Italian ship at 26 K at cape Matapan. Wonder how good their gunnery control was.
Bismarck vs Hood....14 K?


Was The Bismarck outgunned in the engagement against HMS Hood?
Hmm. Technically, but not really. She could use all her firepower against half the firepower of the British at the engagement. The Price of Wales was also not ready, and as noted still had craftsmen aboard  working with the guns etc. If my memory does not betray me, the Prince also immediately suffered from gun jams.

Were the Swordfishes lucky to disable the steering gear?
Yes, rather so. Another torpedo hit midships causing no damage.
However the Steering gear and rear was very weak.
But a ship that takes a torp right in the belly with no damage (apart from damaged eardrums downships) is hardly a piece of floating crap now is it?

So, in the aftermath, did the Bismarck have no chance of fighting it out?
Hard to say. It was still untouched in its firepower, being approached by many ships from many directions, of which only 2 were a real threat to begin with, King George and Rodney.
Bismarck targeted Rodney first, a wise choice, for Rodney, much less armoured still had a whooping firepower with 9 16 inch guns on the front deck. There their luck ran out, the British scoring before and knocking out their gunnery control. After that it was but a slugdown where the Bismarck lost totally.
There were German U boats nearby, but the only one to get near enough had no torps, so It could but watch....
Makes you wonder in the "what if" category what the Germans could have done if they had put together a swift plan to aid the Bismarck. FW Condors, destroyers, subs, etc?
And what if the Bismarck had landed a couple of 15 inch shells on the much more vulnerable Rodney?

So was the Bismarck unsinkable?
Definately not. Getting knocked out of order by a single shell, she was definately not unsinkable. Burning from one end to another, there was but a wait for hull failiure or a magazine explosion (unless they were flooded of course)
It was up to the British How they would sink her, not if, and in that game there were many things to consider. I guess they took the swiftest way, just close in and pound, - and it worked....
However she stayed in 1 piece, and even so, remarkably on the bottom of the sea. Jolly good structure.

FINAL STATEMENT

Bismarck was on hell of a ship, but nothing Uber Uber.

The British shot her to pieces and eventually she sank.


FINAL FINALNESS:

Where can I find Wreck pictures online. I mean, Bismarck is hard, so deep down. But HMS Barham, or HMS Ark Royal must be a lot easier to photograph, being in shallow waters.
BTW, does Ballard have a website with pictures? The Victims of Midway have been photographed intensively as an example.

[Kelly[KGN]]

Hi Angus,

I agree to 99,9%.


Btw, distance between Hood and Bismarck was 24-25km (if my memory isn't betraying me) when fire was opened.

And to the easy prey at the end, not only that she was only going at 7knot, what is nearly a not moving target, one of the first shells hit the communication between the main turrets and the firecontrol center, one of the flaws I mention before, those cables were above the 2nd armor deck and protected only by a (out of memory) 2cm armor against shrapnels, which was truely a pretty stupid design.
So, from that point on the turret crew had to aim on their own, without the mechanical "computer" to do the math. The end is known, the RN was pretty confused about the fact that her fire was so damn bad.

[vorticon]

lol how could the bismark be "lucky: to sink the hood

that would be like saying a bf109 was lucky to shoot down a soptwith snipe (a bit over done but thats the general idea)

the hood was a battle cruiser NOT a battleship and it was built in 1919 (around ther anyway)

the bismark was made sometime in the 30's and was a battleship
so naturally it would have better armour and bigger guns than the hood. and a battleship sinking a battle cruiser doesnt take luck it just takes very good aim.

as for the british didnt sink the bismark well...i for one concider using superior fire power (and numbers) to get something to surrender and scuttle is the exact same as sinking it with your own guns.

and i thought we were all supposed to be addicted to the air war rather than the sea war

[Kelly[KGN]]

Not lucky to sink Hood, but lucky to sink Hood in 6 minutes.