Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: NOD2000 on December 08, 2002, 09:47:31 PM
-
WOW!!!!!!!!!
the show about the Bismark on discovery channel showed that the internal hull was still intact, and since only the first outer room had been penetrated by the torpedo's fired in the last seconds the Bismark had accually been sunk by the Germans commiting suicide............insteresti ng........
-
Yep...read about that. Apparently the German guys were under orders not to surrender OR retreat from battle... so they scuttled.
-
whatever, you can claim the british didn't sink the bismark, but the bismark was dead in the water , all main guns knocked out , burning from bow to stern and defenseless.
the fact is the british engaged the bismark and the bismark ended up on the bottom, spin it anyway you want , the bismark was sunk by british action.
-
Originally posted by john9001
whatever, you can claim the british didn't sink the bismark, but the bismark was dead in the water , all main guns knocked out , burning from bow to stern and defenseless.
the fact is the british engaged the bismark and the bismark ended up on the bottom, spin it anyway you want , the bismark was sunk by british action.
HERE!!! HERE!!!
...-Gixer
The Horse Soldiers
-
No actuelly the british did sink it in a way, if they had not damadged it so bad they would not have commited suicide.
But even if they hadnt commited suicide the bismark would have sank anyway, british would have finished them off I think. Havent seen the show yet watchin rerun.
-
It's spelt 'British'.
-
It is spelled "spelled" :D
-
And yes even if the Bismark was'nt sunk by the Brits, it was defeated by them. Talk about bad luck that Swordfish torpedo hit ... only a few hours from LW cover ...
-
Of course the Biritish did not sink Bismarck. You see the crew was under Hitler's strict orders to scuttle the ship at that exact time and place. The presence of the British ships was merely coincidental.
:D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Of course the Biritish did not sink Bismarck. You see the crew was The presence of the British ships was merely coincidental.
:D
Next we will hear that the Bismark was sunk despite British attempts to save it.........:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Of course the Biritish did not sink Bismarck. You see the crew was under Hitler's strict orders to scuttle the ship at that exact time and place. The presence of the British ships was merely coincidental.
:D
Of course the Biritish didn't sink the Bismark, it was the British that were responsible for its demise.
Ack-Ack
-
I want to give back half of my kills, 'cause they all decided to run their ac into ground for no reason:D :D :D :D :D
-
Scuttleing a ship and commiting suicide are two different things. Scuttleing a ship to prevent capture has been a common practice for hundreds of years, but the crew offloaded as many as they could, if not all hands before they sent her to the bottom.
Conn
-
why is it you people need to constantly try to knock British accomplishments in WW2?
I think its because you lack any decent war stories to tell about your own country myself :)
for surely if you did have some to tell you would post them instead of trying to lessen other countries victories.
Dont forget the bismark was sinking all manner of shipping including american merchant ships.We lost Hms Hood in the battle with the Bismark and many sailors perished for that victory.
If you read about the battle you would see that the captians of the other ships were incredibly brave to face those huge guns with their far less powerfull guns.
I find it disgusting that you should try to make their sacrifice less merely to annoy a few english people on this BB.
By your thinking the Americans DIDNT defeat Japan. They surrendered (scuttled :)).Does that make you feel good?
exactly, so screw your idea and post on the 'mentality of a 4 year old' forum
-
all i am saying is they proved that british action only penetrated the first rooms...........the Germans scuttled it cuz they didn't want it captured......on that whole expidition they found 2 places where british guns even peirced the armor on the side.......thats saying alot if only 1,760 (around that) shells were fired and only 2 pierced the some of the others landed on the decks those are the ones that started the fire..........
really crazy to think that from what they showed the Brits could of fired everything they had and it still probbly wouldn't have sank
lol that would be a sight......."well captin were out of torpedo's rounds for the 15in guns and even the AA guns what else can we do it still won't sink"
"well bloody hell throw some rocks at it"
-
hazed i'm just saying what they said on teh the show about it when they whent down to look at it.
-
British is spelled "LIMEY"...not B.r.i.t.i.s.h.
The brits DID win the VICTORY over the Germans.
Bismarck did sink with the limeys all over it...suicide or no....the brits where victorious...just like the battle of Britain.
but don't forget limey's....you where not alone....Canadians....Aussies ...Indians...all a whole bunch of others got you that victory
-
I think technically, having forced a ship into a situation where quick repairs/escape is not an option, and the only left choice was to abandon ship and detonate it before another wave of attack comes in, counts as "sunk".
Wasn't USS Lexington like that?
-
I know full well what the show said. And it certainly did not imply that the british didnt sink or defeat her.
they merely said that the Germans scuttled her because they faced capture and defeat.
And btw we wouldnt have thrown rocks at it we would have rammed the bastards.
You also now seem to be saying that the gunnery accuracy was poor when you have no idea of the difficulty it seems.
The british ships had less range and smaller ships and so were being hit long before their guns came into range.Those gunners were firing under the most extreme conditions possible.They were hit several times and some guns lost all but 2 crew but continued to fire.One fellow loading whilst the other aimed with their dead pals lying all around them.It is a well documented fact that British sea gunners were the best in years gone by and still are among, if not the best today.
If you dont agree I suggest you take yourself down to portsmouth, where i lived as a kid and go to the naval barracks and shout it at the top of your lungs.
The matter would be delt with forthwith ;)
This battle was one of pride for the British.The Hood was the pride of our fleet and was a terrible loss.The sinking of the bismark was incredibly important for national pride and revenge as well as for its tactical value. I suggest you read the whole account of the battle, from the sneaking out to sea to the chase and the subsiquent battle.After doing so perhaps you will, like me have only the greatest admiration for those sailors and crew and you'll think twice before posting 'The British didnt sink the bismark'
the shells may not have sunk her but they were going to the bottom one way or another.
The British did sink the Bismark.
-
It would have been an even greater victory for the Brits had they captured it........
-
Doesn't matter whether it was scuttled or not. RN engaged and destroyed the Bismark.
RN
-
sorry i should have made the name of the thread 'british shells didn't sink the bismark"
that is what i ment..........don't get me wrong i think that the men on the prince william were brave but not near as brave as the gladiator pilot that ducked in through the fire and hit the rudder
BRING THE GLADIATOR TO AH!!!!
(had to sneek that in)
don't get me wrong all i am saying is that british shells didn't bring her down as many belived.............
-
Originally posted by hazed-
why is it you people need to constantly try to knock British accomplishments in WW2?
I think its because you lack any decent war stories to tell about your own country myself :)
for surely if you did have some to tell you would post them instead of trying to lessen other countries victories.
Dont forget the bismark was sinking all manner of shipping including american merchant ships.We lost Hms Hood in the battle with the Bismark and many sailors perished for that victory.
If you read about the battle you would see that the captians of the other ships were incredibly brave to face those huge guns with their far less powerfull guns.
I find it disgusting that you should try to make their sacrifice less merely to annoy a few english people on this BB.
By your thinking the Americans DIDNT defeat Japan. They surrendered (scuttled :)).Does that make you feel good?
exactly, so screw your idea and post on the 'mentality of a 4 year old' forum
Easy ... Nobody's trying to "knock" the Brits (except the obvious Trolls ;) ). However I don't consider the sinking of Bismarck "courageous" on the part of the British. Nearly every capital ship in the UK home fleet descended upon "him" while he was unmaneuverable due to the Swordfish torpedo hit. Bismarck never stood a chance. The 8 big 15" guns of Bismarck wasn't THAT big. Several UK battleships had 14" or 15" guns, and HMS Rodney had nine 16". He was outnumbered, out gunned, and outmaneuvered. The thing to fear about the Bismarck was his advanced radar controlled gun-directors.
The crew of the HMS Hood however have my undisputed admiration for their courage, and sympathy for their loss. They faced Bismarck alone (attending cruisers didn't do much good). Don't think this will make you feel any better, but the reason the Hood blew up after that first salvo was a design fault on behalf of her designers (speed over armour), not an effect of the superior gun power of the Bismarck.
-
Out of interest, do you think Gunther Scholz was courageous?
-
I'm sorry, but I don't know enough of his service history to say one way or the other.
I guess you're fishing for the "all who faught were coruageous" statement? ... Yes they all where. I should have said "The sinking of Bismarck wasn't exceptionally coreagous ..."
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The thing to fear about the Bismarck was his advanced radar controlled gun-directors.
.
.
.
The crew of the HMS Hood however have my undisputed admiration for their courage, and sympathy for their loss. They faced Bismarck alone .
1-radar contolled fire was vastly superior on the british side. German naval-applied radar was never on par with the british one.
On the other hand, optic rangefinders were way better on the german ship, and that was the reason because KM Bismarck's fire was so accurate during the engagement with HMS Hood. Ideal optical conditions and calm seas.
2- The HMS Hood (8 15 inch guns) was sailing with the Battleship Prince of Wales (10-14 inch guns, even while some of the mounts were giving trouble). Both ships had way more firepower than the german squadron, comprising the heavy cruiser Prince Eugen (8- 8 inch guns) and the battleship Bismarck (8-15 inch guns). And, not to be forgotten, not far from the action (in fact they were within visual range), were the british heavy cruisers Norfolk and Suffolk (both with 8-inch guns each).
The british HMS Hood hardly was "facing Bismarck alone" on that confrontation...in fact the british squadron had twice the firepower than the german one.
what happened was that the germans were immensely lucky whith the hit that blew the British ship.
Finally, I also agree that the Bismarck was sunk by british actions.
However I don't see the epic side of this story ,at least from the british PoV.
To be clear: the KM Bismarck was a sorely obsolete ship, heavily overweighted, fatally overcrewed, poorly protected and ridden with lots of faulty design features that only could led to its destruction in a naval confrontation. It was a fuel hog, a not-that fast ship (it barely could sail at 29knots, which wasn't that great), and was only moderately well armored (8 15 inch guns in 4 twin turrets was not a good armament for a ship displacing almost 50.000 tons at full displacement).
Even more: it was sunk in an action where everyone knew the only outcome was the sinking of the german ship. The Bismarck had not enough fuel to reach France after getting the torpedo in his stern. It had a disabled steering system and couldn't steam at more than 10-15 knots, in a wide 200nm circle. It couldn't be helped by anything, and its fate was to be sunk in a naval action, or scuttled by its crew to avoid being captured after running out of fuel.
British propaganda made wonders in turning a pyrric victory achieved with overwhelming odds into a war triumph. It was normal, given the shock the loss of the HOod had caused between the british people...but now ,60 years later we should know better and aknowledge the true conditions of the sinking of that ship.
-
I didn't know about the HMS Prince of Wales. Like I said; the cruisers wouldn't have done much good. Their firepower would have given the British the edge, albeit for a short time. They would have been knocked out early in any protracked engagement. The Prince of Wales on the other hand would have won the day for the British. The Hood was critically underarmored ... technically she was not a battleship, but a battlecruiser.
The crew of the HMS Hood still have my ... sympathy.
-
Originally posted by RRAM
1-radar contolled fire was vastly superior on the british side. German naval-applied radar was never on par with the british one.
On the other hand, optic rangefinders were way better on the german ship, and that was the reason because KM Bismarck's fire was so accurate during the engagement with HMS Hood. Ideal optical conditions and calm seas.
The Prince of Wales was not able to use her radar targeting because of her own high powered radio transmissions. It was only after the Hood was sunk and the Prince of Wales was being battered that the targeting radar was finally turned on and her fire became more accurate and scored multiple hits on the Bismark.
2- The HMS Hood (8 15 inch guns) was sailing with the Battleship Prince of Wales (10-14 inch guns, even while some of the mounts were giving trouble). Both ships had way more firepower than the german squadron, comprising the heavy cruiser Prince Eugen (8- 8 inch guns) and the battleship Bismarck (8-15 inch guns). And, not to be forgotten, not far from the action (in fact they were within visual range), were the british heavy cruisers Norfolk and Suffolk (both with 8-inch guns each).
The 8 15-inch guns on the Bismark were as good, if not better than any gun in the British fleet. Only the 16-inch guns of the British Nelson Class battleships were better. The Bismark was 1/6 of a mile long and 120 feet wide, which made the battleship an excellent and stable gun platform.
The british HMS Hood hardly was "facing Bismarck alone" on that confrontation...in fact the british squadron had twice the firepower than the german one.
While the Hood and Prince of Wales might have numberically out-gunned the Bismark, you seem to forget that the Bismark also had an escort cruiser with him. Prinz Eugan pretty much equalized things.
Also, the opening tactic used by Admiral Holland when he decided to charge the Bismark and Prinz Eugan head long only allowed to bring the foward guns of the Hood and Price of Wales to bear on the German ships. The Bismark and Prinz Eugan were able to bring all their guns to action from the start.
what happened was that the germans were immensely lucky whith the hit that blew the British ship.
It wasn't luck, it was a combination of many things. Bad tactics in the opening part of the action was a major factor in the destruction of the Hood as was initially mis-identifying the Prinz Eugan as the Bismark. The British incorrectly identified the Prinz Eugan as the Bismark because of their similiar profile and the British opening salvo was aimed at the Prinz Eugan. This let the better trained gunners on the Bismark accuratly target the Hood and Prince of Wales with his 15 inch main guns.
It was also bad command decisions by Admiral Lutjens that ultimatly sealed the Bismarks fate.
Finally, I also agree that the Bismarck was sunk by british actions.
However I don't see the epic side of this story ,at least from the british PoV.
At the time the Bismark was the fastest and larget battleship ever made and if it had successfully slipped into the shipping lanes, it would have wreaked havok amongst the convoys. Probably doing as much damage as the U-boats did. Pretty epic if you ask me.
To be clear: the KM Bismarck was a sorely obsolete ship, heavily overweighted, fatally overcrewed, poorly protected and ridden with lots of faulty design features that only could led to its destruction in a naval confrontation. It was a fuel hog, a not-that fast ship (it barely could sail at 29knots, which wasn't that great), and was only moderately well armored (8 15 inch guns in 4 twin turrets was not a good armament for a ship displacing almost 50.000 tons at full displacement).
The work on the Bismark was started in 1939 and finished in 1940. It had a top speed of 29-30 knots (in comparison, the Iowa class of battleships, were the same speed). The Bismark was better designed than the H.M.S Hood and most of the other British main ships of the line. It had superior armor and fire control. The H.M.S. Hood on the other hand, had all the defects inherent with World War I battle cruisers and was unmodernized and over twenty years old. The Prince of Wales was a new ship but hadn't had a shake down cruise and wasn't really considered battle worthy, it still had Vickers engineers working on the guns. The Hood also had very weak deck armor, which probably led to the decision of Admiral Holland to charge the German ships head on.
The Washington Treaty stated that battleships weren't to exceed 35,000 tons but as we all know, the Germand didn't pay heed. Being 50,000 tons, allowed the engineers to give the Bismark incredibly thick armor and therefore making it a very resilient ship. Over 40% of the ship's weight was from the armor plating and he was still able to make 30 knots. I would say the Bismark was hardly obsolete by any stretch of the word.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The Prince of Wales was not able to use her radar targeting because of her own high powered radio transmissions. It was only after the Hood was sunk and the Prince of Wales was being battered that the targeting radar was finally turned on and her fire became more accurate and scored multiple hits on the Bismark.
I'm talking about generic technology here. Someone mentioned that German radar was very good, and I say that that is not the case.
Bismarck's radar was totally unable to assist accurate rangefinding once the "open fire" order was given due to the incapability to discern between the shell fall splashes and the targetted ships themselfs.
British radar could do it with no problem.
The 8 15-inch guns on the Bismark were as good, if not better than any gun in the British fleet. Only the 16-inch guns of the British Nelson Class battleships were better. The Bismark was 1/6 of a mile long and 120 feet wide, which made the battleship an excellent and stable gun platform.
the 15/42 guns aboard of the Hood were among the best guns mounted on a battleship, and were MORE efficient than the high velocity 15' guns aboard the Bismarck. In fact, the British RN was more satisfied with the 15' guns than with the 16' aboard the Rodneys (the 16' shell was relatively light for its caliber, and had a flat high-speed trajectory that caused a low efficiency at long range shootouts)
Also, the performance of the british shells were much better than that of the germans.
While the Hood and Prince of Wales might have numberically out-gunned the Bismark, you seem to forget that the Bismark also had an escort cruiser with him. Prinz Eugan pretty much equalized things.
I do mention Prinz Eugen in my analysis. Re-read it.
Anyway, I must say that ,to think that a 13000 ton heavy cruiser with 8 eight inch guns "equalizes things", compared with a 35000 ton, with 10 14 inch guns and 20 5.25 guns, is a quite wrong assessment.
Even more because you again leave out Norfolk and Suffolk, both with the same weapons than the Prinz Eugen.
Also, the opening tactic used by Admiral Holland when he decided to charge the Bismark and Prinz Eugan head long only allowed to bring the foward guns of the Hood and Price of Wales to bear on the German ships. The Bismark and Prinz Eugan were able to bring all their guns to action from the start.
A wrong tactical decision does not change the nature of my assessment of the situation. The germans were hopelessy outgunned in that action, and I think that in 9 out of 10 re-enactmenets of that battle, the Germans would've got mauled.
Holland did a wrong move when he faced the german squadron, had he decided to close ranges in a less drastical way, the germans would've got their tulips handed to them.
It wasn't luck, it was a combination of many things. Bad tactics in the opening part of the action was a major factor in the destruction of the Hood as was initially mis-identifying the Prinz Eugan as the Bismark. The British incorrectly identified the Prinz Eugan as the Bismark because of their similiar profile and the British opening salvo was aimed at the Prinz Eugan. This let the better trained gunners on the Bismark accuratly target the Hood and Prince of Wales with his 15 inch main guns.
was pure plan and simple luck. The Hood, while being a re-inforced battlecruiser (the bassic design was modified after Jutland battle, still on the docks, to reinforce the armor of the ship), had a pretty impressive ammount of armor on board. The nature of that armor makes practically impossible to put a 15' round into an ammunition store, given the angles of approach , the penetration capabilities of the german round, and the armor on board Hood. The chance existed, but it was very slim. Literally, one shot out of a million.
The issue is so complicated that still is a matter of discussion in naval tech boards. There are several teories on the blowing up of the Hood. I'll list them, pasted and copied from a fantastic study found in the best naval site I know on Internet (http://www.warships1.com)
At the Battle of the Denmark Straits, the Hood was defeated and destroyed with a large loss of life. Out of a complement of 1,419 men, only three were rescued. Some facts about the Hood's demise are beyond dispute: The aft 15 inch (38.1 cm) magazine exploded, the explosion collapsed the amidships section, the ship broke into two sections with the stern section sinking almost immediately and the bow section floating for about three minutes. However, the reasons for her loss have been a source of controversy ever since the battle. There are at least seven plausible explanations for the HMS Hood's sinking. I have heard others, but, I do not find them credible enough to list here. The first four are what I consider to be the most likely Theories, the others are given in no particular order.
1) Official Explanation: The British held two inquiries into the Hood's loss. The first was quite brief, reporting on 2 June 1941, less than two weeks after the Hood was sunk. The second was much longer and detailed, taking testimony from 89 witnesses from the Norfolk, 71 from the Prince of Wales, 14 from the Suffolk, 2 from the Hood and from numerous technical experts. This inquiry reported on 12 September 1941. Both inquiries concluded that the cause of the Hood's loss was not from the Cordite fire on the boat deck, but from one or two 15 inch shells which pierced through the thin amidships deck armor (or possibly the side belt), set off the four inch magazine which in turn set off the after 15 inch magazine.
2) A 15 inch hit that struck the ship underwater, penetrated under the armor belt and detonated in the aft 15 inch magazine.
3) An 8 inch (20.3 cm) or a 15 inch hit on the boatdeck that started a major fire in the four inch ready-use and UP lockers. This gangfired down the four inch ammunition hoists, detonated the four inch magazines, which in turn then set off the aft 15 inch magazine.
4) The fire on the boatdeck as above, but it detonated the torpedo storage and that in turn blew the aft 15 inch magazine. This theory was advanced by the head of the Director of Naval Construction (DNC), Sir Stanley Goodall (who, together with A. L. Attwood, had been in charge of the Hood's design while he was a constructor). A problem with both this and the previous theory is that the fires on the Boat Deck were reported to be dying down by both the witnesses on the Prince of Wales and by Able Seaman Tilburn, the only Hood survivor from the Boat Deck. It is possible that a second fire was burning unseen (to outside observers) down in the torpedo body room, but no such report reached the bridge in the four minutes between the time of the first hit and the time of the Hood's destruction.
5) As a result of the lessons the British learned at Jutland - where three British Battlecruisers blew up from German shellfire - the Hood was redesigned while still under construction to increase her armor protection. This design work was poorly done, resulting in a badly stressed hull. So, at the Denmark Strait battle, the fire on the boatdeck as above may have set the torpedoes on fire. This would have created a very hot fire that could have weakened the strength deck, causing stress levels (already critical) to pass the danger point. The result was that the ship simply broke in half. As the ship broke up, the fire penetrated into the magazines, which then exploded.
6) Just before leaving on her last voyage, the crew had been working to correct a defect in one of the Hood's magazine hydraulic systems. It was stopping just short of the proper level needed to lift cartridges into the loading position. It is unknown if this fault was completely corrected. This problem, if unrepaired or with the turret crew, in the stress of battle, working without all safety precautions in place, could have caused a cartridge, and instantly thereafter the magazine, to explode.
7) A 15 inch shell struck the belt armor, skidded down the inclined face of the plating, and then exploded in the bilges. The flash and blast got propagated through the ship's belly into the aft magazine. This sounds odd, but there was some testing done in the late 1920s that might support the idea. These showed that inwardly inclined armor may indeed deflect a shell in the manner suggested, with the result that the shell would explode in a very dangerous position - under the armor belt and inside the anti-torpedo protection system. Apparently, the concerns about this possibility were enough to cause the DNC to abandon inclined armor for the King George V, Lion and Vanguard class battleships.
Nasty point about Theories 3, 4 and 5 is that the damage that sank the Hood would have been inflicted by the Prinz Eugen. So, ironically, a battlecruiser designed and built to destroy cruisers was instead destroyed by a cruiser.
more on this in http://www.warships1.com/BRbc15_Hood_loss.htm
At the time the Bismark was the fastest and larget battleship ever made and if it had successfully slipped into the shipping lanes, it would have wreaked havok amongst the convoys. Probably doing as much damage as the U-boats did. Pretty epic if you ask me.
Bismarck was "sold" to the media as the fastest ship ever made. In fact it was barely 0.5 knots faster than the british King George V and the american North Carolinas (the KM Bismarck, on loaded condition, never surpassed 29knots).
-
I follow with my answer, seems that the message was too long to be contained in just one answer :)
The work on the Bismark was started in 1939 and finished in 1940. It had a top speed of 29-30 knots (in comparison, the Iowa class of battleships, were the same speed). The Bismark was better designed than the H.M.S Hood and most of the other British main ships of the line. It had superior armor and fire control. The H.M.S. Hood on the other hand, had all the defects inherent with World War I battle cruisers and was unmodernized and over twenty years old. The Prince of Wales was a new ship but hadn't had a shake down cruise and wasn't really considered battle worthy, it still had Vickers engineers working on the guns. The Hood also had very weak deck armor, which probably led to the decision of Admiral Holland to charge the German ships head on.
-You might want to re-check your sources. Bismarck was started in 1936, IIRC.
-Iowa Battleships are listed at 33knots. There are instances of Iowas steaming at 35 knots under certain favorable conditions.
-the HMS Hood was unmodernized from 1920, yes, but didn't share the same problems as the Jutland battlecruisers. The ship had weak deck armor and needed a refit, true, but its belt ,turret, CT, etc protection ranged all from good to excellent. The magazine protection was extensively revised while still in construction, and, other than the weak deck armor, the Hood was an, if not well-protected ship, at least a decently protected one.
The Washington Treaty stated that battleships weren't to exceed 35,000 tons but as we all know, the Germand didn't pay heed. Being 50,000 tons, allowed the engineers to give the Bismark incredibly thick armor and therefore making it a very resilient ship. Over 40% of the ship's weight was from the armor plating and he was still able to make 30 knots. I would say the Bismark was hardly obsolete by any stretch of the word.
You might want to re-check again your sources.
first of all, the Bismarck when lauched was listed at 35000 tons not to alarm the british. Hitler promised to stay within the treaty limits in his particular naval agreement with Britain in 1935.
Second of all, the Bismarcks were designed to be around 45000 tons at full load. The ship as finished weighed an incredible 50000 tons in full load condition, 52000 on overload condition (KM Bismarck sailed in overload condition in May'41). Those 5000 tons of overwheight were caused from bad design features, redundant and overcomplex equipment, etc.
Third of all, the Bismarck was, by a wide margin, worse protected than a British King George V class battleship, or an american North Carolina or South Dakota.
is true that most of the weight of the Bismarck was devoted to protection, the problem was the way the protection was PLACED. Since the end of WWI, the naval designers around the world were designing ships with all-or-nothing armor schemes. That is, the vital places were protected with big ammounts of armor, while non-vital places were left with no armor at all. That helped both in giving a better ship protection (because its vital parts were greatly protected) and a lower weight penalty (because the only part protected were the vitals, saving weight on not-needed armor elsewhere)
Germany was forbidden to design ships over 10000 tons, so their design teams fell behind in the big-ships naval tech race; so when in 1934 Hitler created the Kriegsmarine, the ships designed for that fleet were without all-or nothing armor scheme. How strange that all german big ships of WW2 shared a common denominator: they all suffered an enormous overweight ;)
In other words, EVERY part of the bismarck had an AVERAGE ammount of armor...even if it was not needed. And the VITALS were left with a way less-than-appropiate ammount of armor to protect them.
Next to know is that the german ships were designed without knowledge of the inter-war lessons, which pointed at a higher danger to the horizontal decks of the ship. The german designers, basing their work in WW1 lessons, never gave any of their ships a decent deck protection (in fact is well known the fact that the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had a small "window" over the machinery wich had NO deck armor protection -AT ALL- against plunging fire).
Finally, the weapon arrangement was obsolete. Each of the turrets aboard Bismarck weighted thousands of tons, and it had four. For those four turrets, Bismarck had 8 guns.
I don't need to say that you can pack 9 guns in three turrets in a much more efficient arrangement, and the weight saved could go to a proper armor scheme. (or 8 guns in three turrets, or even 10 in three or four turrets, etc)
there were other inexplicable blunders:
-the ship, thanks to its extreme overloaded design was very wet and nose heavy, causing bad sea-keeping conditions.
Moreover, the 5000ton overweight at full-load caused the main armored belt to be completely UNDER THE WATER, where it could offer no real protection at all.
-Literally MILES of VITAL electrical wiring were left UNPROTECTED because their lines ran over very weakly armored section of the ships, instead of being well protected inside the main armored citadel. Thus, a simple 5' hit on the superstructure near some of those lines could render vital equipment lost.
-the turrets were operated via an interdependant motion (spelling? don't know how to say it) system. In the final engagement, ONE 16' hit BETWEEN Anton and Bruno turrets disabled BOTH turrets at the same time because they were left without motive power. A properly designed ship would've lost none, or, at the most one turret with such a hit.
-the ship had its heavy 4.1 AA battery calibrated for two different rangefinders, but they all fired following the orders of the modern one. net result: 40% of the heavy AA battery of the KM Bismarck was shooting to the air because it wasn't calibrated to the appropiate fire control rangefinder.
-the 3 screw propeller design was highly inneficient and caused structural weakness (there are several accounts of german ships losing their "tails" when hit by a torpedo. Bismarck almost lost its own when hit by the swordfish). There were no 3-screw battleships used by any main contender fleet around the world, except on the german Kriegsmarine.
-etc etc etc etc etc. I could go for ages.
I stand on what I said: the German Bismarck was a ship based on a WWI concept. It was obsolete, it was ridden with design fautls, it had deficient and badly placed protection...
in short, it was a floating fault waiting to be sunk.
-
If they had known what we know today, they coulda captured her.
-
That follows what I've read RAM. The point to consider is not how long the Bismarck stayed afloat, but how quickly it was put out of action once the battle started.
One point with Prince of Wales. It was not just a few turret malfunctions to consider (though these are critical failures) but the fact that it wasn't really a trained ship. I can't imagine it had a great deal of combat effectiveness, though it did manage to score some hits (that caused inportant damage).
Charon
-
YES!!!! ADD MORE JAPANISE AIRPLANES TO AH!!!! WE NEED MORE FLYING ZIPPO'S
Gimme the Ki-84 or 44 and I'll flame your 51/F4U/47/Yak/La5-7/Fw190 anytime. (N1K-2Ja's excluded until such time as an inflight comparison yields the better aircraft) :D
Whoops, almost forgot you spit drivers out there....LOL
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Next we will hear that the Bismark was sunk despite British attempts to save it.........:rolleyes:
Actually, the Bismarck served through the end of the war, it flew numerous raids against London and throughout the Soviet Union, accounting for 1.2 million tons of bombs dropped and 338 enemy planes. Therefore the flying Bismarck must be modeled to support the need for a German heavy in this game.
These claims that it was actuallly sunk are lies and old stories, the captured Bismarck ws noted by several alcoholics to have flown wonderfully, to quote: "She never sinks, never."
Sakai
-
Hi Mates
Think what most people missed in the Discovery Channel episode was the comment at the end was that the Bismark would have sunk no matter what. The scuttle was just shooting an already dead horse. Every historian I have read on the subject agrees.
What next?
Keep the blue side up.
Majors
-
I consider the Graf Spee and the Deuchtland pocket battleships to be far superior than the Bismark for "the war effort"
They were faster.
Well armed (11 inchers)
Well armored
SMALL
"Cheaper".
The bismark was really just a floating "death star", which ironically had some kid from some farm fly the "trench" and put a "torpedo" in its only "real" weakspot, the rudder.
Bismark wouldve been sunk one way or another in or just after her first sortie, just like the Tirpitz was blasted from the air, so wouldve (actually.. it did) the bismark. You just cant hide or protect that thing from the air.
Now, the Yamato and Musashi.. those things wouldve scared the living crap out of the RN if they were loose in the atlantic.
-
I don't believe anybody ever said that the "Brittish" sank the "Bismark.":p
-
Originally posted by OIO
I consider the Graf Spee and the Deuchtland pocket battleships to be far superior than the Bismark for "the war effort"
They were faster.
Well armed (11 inchers)
Well armored
SMALL
"Cheaper".
1- the Graf Spees (actually they were the "Deutschlands", as they were three ships, the "Deutschland" -later called "Lutzow"-, the "Admiral Scheer", and the "Graf Spee" which was the latest), were slower than the Bismarcks. The Bismarcks were 29 knot ships while the Graf Spees were good for just over 27 knots, usually less.
2- for the task they had (merchant raiders), six 8-inch guns would've been as good as the six 11' guns the Deutschlands had, and they would've been much lighter, thus allowing a higher top speed.
3- believe it or not, the Deutschlands were not better armored than a british light cruiser. In any case they weren't armored enough to prevent getting badly damaged by 6 inch guns, which was quite bad.
4- they were small and cheap, yes. But they didn't cause the awe the Bismarcks did.
Honestly I think the Graf Spees were as bad an inversion as the Bismarcks were. All that metal could've gone to U-boats, which surely would'be been much more useful for Germany.
-
damn americans always trying to stop the british from taking credit for stuff...and i thought the nazi propoganda during the war was high...
-vort,,,painfully resisting screeming and kicking someone for this blatant misconjuration of facts
-
LOL guys!
The short version: The Bismarck blew the Hood out of the water. The British got mad, and blew the Bismarck out of the water. End of story.
-
I have to agree Ram, it appears that the British technology is damn better then the Germans, that a 16 year older british ship should have been on even keel with a modern German ship.
This probably explains why RAF was so damn superior to the Luftwaffe as well.
Ram, and thanks for finally seeing the light.
-
Easy ... Nobody's trying to "knock" the Brits (except the obvious Trolls ). However I don't consider the sinking of Bismarck "courageous" on the part of the British. Nearly every capital ship in the UK home fleet descended upon "him" while he was unmaneuverable due to the Swordfish torpedo hit. Bismarck never stood a chance. The 8 big 15" guns of Bismarck wasn't THAT big. Several UK battleships had 14" or 15" guns, and HMS Rodney had nine 16". He was outnumbered, out gunned, and outmaneuvered. The thing to fear about the Bismarck was his advanced radar controlled gun-directors.
1 you refer to a ship as a he...not a good idea unless your in a land locked state
as for the rest...welll wernt the jap's technically outnumbered when you dropped the nuclear bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki
hmmm you americans seem to also think that your people at the battle of midway were couragouse...and they were definatly outnumbered and out gunned. the victors make the history.
and the bismark had a big chance...they could have pretended to be dead in the water lured the british ships closer and at the right moment start blowing the hell outta them.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
1 you refer to a ship as a he...not a good idea unless your in a land locked state
as for the rest...welll wernt the jap's technically outnumbered when you dropped the nuclear bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki
hmmm you americans seem to also think that your people at the battle of midway were couragouse...and they were definatly outnumbered and out gunned. the victors make the history.
and the bismark had a big chance...they could have pretended to be dead in the water lured the british ships closer and at the right moment start blowing the hell outta them.
The Bismarck was referred to as "he" (at least by the Germans) because "he" was named after the great Prussian chancellor who unified Germany under the Prussian crown.
I do not consider the US atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki courageous.
I do consider the US airmen courageous during the battle for Midway. They flew unescorted at the very extreme of their operational range to reach the IJN fleet, at a time where the Zeke was still the superior fighter in the Pacific theatre. It was a hard fought battle on both sides. Luck and guile won the day for the US.
-
yeah but at midway th americans didnt SINK those jap carriers, they were scuttled! :P
the yanks didnt sink em , the Sea water inside em sank them :)
oh er , what else can i spew out to annoy the americans who take offence to me spewing watermelon about what were in fact very brave men??
his thread was posted purely to try and take away the victory of the brits and try to get in a cheap shot at us brits who will obviously get annoyed by the statement 'brits didnt sink the bismark'.
I think youre dispicable No2000 and thats all i need say about it. :)
-
How do you scuttle a ship?
I understand that in a sub, just nose her in
But if the hull is intact, how'd she get down there?
Just wondering....
-
there are usually charges in key places (during times of war) inside the hull around the keel that when fired sink the ship.
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
there are usually charges in key places (during times of war) inside the hull around the keel that when fired sink the ship.
Actually there are already many holes in a ships' hull, they are primarily for pumping the bilges,(usually the lowest point in a ship) counter flooding for damage control as well as for flooding ammo/gun powder magazines, and most importantly taking on ballast. (A ship takes on ballast to keep the ship on even keel as it uses up it's fuel oil, and keeps it bottom heavy so it doesn't roll over.)
Placing charges on the valves and pumps, plus any one way check valves that may be present, and Voila' the ship starts flooding.
The main reason for scuttling charges is so if the ship is boarded the enemy can't close the valves and salvage the ship.
However ya wanna look at it, the Bismark crew would not have scuttled thier ship if not for the British Navy forcing that action through armed conflict, therefore the British "destroyed" the Bismark.
End of Story.
-
no doubt.
-
I don't understand why the germans would send the pride of their navy out into the atlantic to be vastly outnumbered by the battle tested British navy. Seems it would be just a matter of time before it would be found and sunk.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I don't understand why the germans would send the pride of their navy out into the atlantic to be vastly outnumbered by the battle tested British navy. Seems it would be just a matter of time before it would be found and sunk.
Bingo.
Can't say the KM weren't brave. Also was a HUGE amount of German pride in having Battlehsips at all. I can't recall the KM plan for ship building's name or number, but it called for several Carrier task forces with new battleships to be built by 1948, I think it was. I agree with whomever said that the steel and manufacturing capacity would have been better spent on U-boats. However, after Hood sunk so quickly the guys on the English ships that charged out there wanting nothing more than to go toe to toe with Bismarck exhibited I think extraordinary courage. As far as they knew the damn thing was a super ship of some kind.
Sakai
-
I know very little about naval combat and this engagement specifically. I thought a lot of Germans lost their lives at the sinking of this ship. If so, did someone forget to sound the 'abandon ship' call before scuttling her?
I'd love to hear more details about this.
-
"He" was on fire from bow to stern, and the water was freezing. Most of them burned or drowned despite modest atempts to save them by the British.
-
The british destroyers began to pick up the survivors, but were ordered to move. The fear was they would be sitting ducks for the german u-boats. Many were left in the water.
-
Hi RRAM,
sorry to interrupt you, where are your information from?
TV? Internet? You should go and get some more correct information and less biased.
Or simply just read what Adm. Tovey said about the Bismarck class.
Btw, she did the mile with 31,8 knots.
I'm not in the mood to write a long answer, just try to get some information from people who were working on that ship.
-
Thrawn, you're comparing oranges to apples. There's no comparison at all between German/british naval tech states and aircrat tech states...
mostly because the Royal Navy tested several concepts to be used on battleships and built quite some of them in the inter-war years, thus learning a lot in the process.
IN comparison the germans between 1918 and 1934 built some under.-average light cruisers and three 12000 ton heavy cruisers with 11' weapons, that were only a partial success. In other words, Versalles forced a tremendous technologic lag on the german engineers.
But in the air Germany was one of the lead nations in the world in those years thanks to their advances in transport aircraft, flying boats, aircraft engines, etc.
So when the moment came to build ships, and to build planes, Germany could only build second-class ships with obsolete features that other nations had stopped doing for not being worth the cost...
but in the air Germany built from the very first moment, and in less than one year, the best fighter in the world of its time.
Originally posted by Kelly[KGN]
Hi RRAM,
sorry to interrupt you, where are your information from?
TV? Internet? You should go and get some more correct information and less biased.
Or simply just read what Adm. Tovey said about the Bismarck class.
Btw, she did the mile with 31,8 knots.
I'm not in the mood to write a long answer, just try to get some information from people who were working on that ship.
Tovey could tell anything you want to say here. Churchill also said that the Bismarck was a monster, the germans said it was unsinkable (oh yeah, but it went down as any other ship).
Fact remains: the Bismarck was the worse "modern" battleship afloat in 1941 ("modern" means built after the 15 year" battleship build vacation" Forced by the Washington treaty), and was worse than many older battleships around.
Comparing other nation's "modern" battleships to Bismarck:
The British KGV class was overall better than the Bismarck, while displacing 15000 tons less at full load.
the US Battleships were WAY better than what the Bismarck could offer, at around 15-10000 tons less.
the French Richelieus were also much more efficient and well protected ship than the Bismarck, at 14000 tons less.
The Italian Littorios were also way overweight and had problematic weaponry. However they were well protected (Against anything that hit them OVER the waterline, because under there was that damned Plugliese anti torpedo system...ergcs.. ;)) and well suited for their main role (sail and fight in the mediterranean).
The japanese Yamatos...well, you don't want me to compare the Bismarck with the Yamato...right? ;) :D :D
Face it, the Bismarck were badly designed ships, based on dated concepts and with enormous design blunders.
Oh, the speed you mentioned on the mile was done by a "light" bismarck displacing just avobe 42000 tons (And probably running the engines over their specified power).
On May'41, Bismarck sailed with full overload, wich meant around 51500 tons. Believe me those 9500 tons did SLOW down the ship quite a bit. The ship hardly could steam at 29 knots, and that being generous.
Finally about my sources... a lot of internet, yes, but over all http://www.warship1.com , the best naval site I've ever seen, and with a discussion board where real battleship nuts are commenting, talking and discussing all day long about their favorite hobby: Battleships.
It also has a wonderful documentation zone, listing all the fleets of the world and many of their ships.
And finally a great essay zone were engineers and people who know their business publish texts about ships ,their technology, etc... some of them are really BRILLIANT (if you're interested in naval artillery you CAN't miss reading Mr. Nathan Okun's essays)
Finally I own a quite small but very good bibliography about WWII battleships (namely the books of Friedman's and Garzke&Drulin ... wich casually are considered to be authors of the best battleship books ever published ;))
just a piece of advice. Aftet WWII aircraft, WWII battleships are my second big passion. I know well what I'm talking about here, believe me.
Is pretty ironic that after so many time of being called "luftwhiner" someone tells me to be "Biased" against something german, isn't it?... :D.
P.S. My favorite battleship of all times is Bismarck. Those looks are simply awesome, even when the ship itself was little more than a piece of floating battleshit. :)
-
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.
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.
:-)
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.
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.
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? :D
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?
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.
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.
KGV was the better choose for the RN, Bismarck for the KM, because both ships were planed to fullfill different duties.
-
Originally posted by Kelly[KGN]
Hi,
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.
(Raising hand)
I have a question.
Both Yamato and Bismarck were attacked by superior forces and pounded mercilessly. Anyway to compare those two poundings to see which one took the most damage?
Also, how did German Fire control of large calibre naval rifles compare to Japanese? I would assume the US Iowas had best fire control?
Sakai
-
Hi,
uhm, very hard to tell, due to the different kind of damage they faced.
I'm not 100% sure about what kind of damage the Yamato took in detail so my idea is only vague and nothing I would really believe in.
But Yamato faced a heavy air bombing with airtorpedos while Bismarck took worst shellfire and ship torpedos.
For what I know the torpedos didn't penetrate the basic structur of Bismarck's hull, while the shells totally wrecked all upper superstructurs.
To quote Tovey again, he ordered to stop shellfire and sink her with torpedos, because he was pretty confused about the fact that both RN ships were not able to sink here with their mainguns.
On the other hand, Yamato took much more explosive damage by bombs and around the same damage from torpedos, although I think that the US airtorpedos were using less explosives than ship torpedos, please correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not sure in that special case or time period.
But I think Yamato was sunk...in the true meaning of the word. Sunk, not scuttled.
I dunno about who took more damage, but at least Bismarck seemed to could take more. Just my opinion.
Another example could be, the heavy airraid on Tirpitz, after it, her superstructure was also very damaged, but not a single bomb did penetrate the 2nd deck armor and reached vital parts of the ship. Although others claim here their deckarmor was a joke. :D
She took even a 8t bomb full hit and was still swimming. Although nearly worthless due to the totally damaged bow. I think after the tallboy hit she was only able to go 7knots.
Again, I don't say it's a fact, because nobody can really count all important points, where the shell/bombs hit exactly and so on...but my personal point of view is, that Bismarck took heavier damage.
And the end it doesn't matter much anyway, both sunk.
;)
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
...
Also, the opening tactic used by Admiral Holland when he decided to charge the Bismark and Prinz Eugan head long only allowed to bring the foward guns of the Hood and Price of Wales to bear on the German ships. The Bismark and Prinz Eugan were able to bring all their guns to action from the start.
...
Ack-Ack
In his book about the underwater search for the Bismarck's wreck, Ballard explains that, fully aware of the Hood's weak top armor, Holland wanted to close the distance between his force and the german ships as fast as possible to avoid shells coming from above. At a closer range, shells would have had flatter trajectories and would have crashed against the side armor. So I wouldn't call Holland's decisions 'bad tactics', like some 'armchair tacticians' dare to do...
The combination of skill and luck showed by the german gunners sealed the fight.
to the Hood's crew.
-
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 :D
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? :D
[[/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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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!
:rolleyes:
-
Hi,
I think dead soldiers are dead soldiers, nationality doesn't matter.
-
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.
-
Hi Angus,
I agree to 99,9%.
:D
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.
-
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
-
Not lucky to sink Hood, but lucky to sink Hood in 6 minutes.
;)