Naval History Forums

Of course that is true. I didn't really mean to imply that the Bismarck wouldn't have sunk eventually without scuttling and Dorsetshire torpedoes, but rather that it was not so clearly the two battleships combined, sinking Bismarck.

But regardless, the victory is granted. Insisting on the clearcut sinking of one ship by another in order to declare victory might be a bit too stringent.

Bismarck hammering away for an hour or so at Nelson with main battery/gunnery problems, and quite possibly leaving Nelson in every bit as bad a condition as Bismarck was at the end, and steaming away in relatively good condition, wouldn't seem all that hard to view as 'winning'

But let's not fuss about it, lol.

This forum is so cool, I love reading the posts here! Especially seeing these guys who are publishing scientific literature on the subject right in here with us.

I think Bismarck would have sunk without scuttling or torpedoes from Dorsetshire; it just would have taken several hours more. She was so badly wrecked internally above the MAD, damage control would have been impossible and she would have gradually settled lower and lower due to the many holes in her hull. There is no way to prove one way or the other what would have happened, though.

[quote="RF"][quote="Djoser"]
It's not necessary to sink the rival to win the duel, either, in my mind. Not at all. As in boxing. You don't have to kill the guy, just knock his ass out.
[/quote]

With respect you cannot compare war to a competitive sport. Boxing, even before the Queensbury Rules, never had the specific intent on killing the opponent.

In war you sink the enemy ship, so it cannot fight another battle. The defeated boxer still had his life and remaining boxing career.[/quote]

True enough, but it would seem pretty clear to me that in a duel between two ships, in which one ship was rendered incapable of doing even a destroyer any harm, possibly dead in the water, etc.--and the other ship remained capable of steaming away and fighting other opponents--there isn't much question of who 'won' the battle.

Of course it would be better to sink the Nelson, but as we have seen from the results of the final battle, even with two fully operational battleships steaming as close as they wanted firing away with all guns at the helpless opponent, it took more than that to sink the Bismarck. Scuttling and a few more torpedoes, to be exact. But the British battleships 'won' the fight, that is pretty clear. Even if it took more than they had to send the Bismarck to the bottom of the sea...

[quote="RF"]Paul, I'm sure lessons were learned at Jutland, but don't forget that the post war world of 1919 was very different from 1914 or 1939. War with Germany was not again envisaged until 1938, and at that time the German fleet was not seen as significant.

For the British don't forget that the biggest enemy faced by the Royal Navy in the inter war period were budget cuts - and Britain paid a huge price for that in the first three years of WW2.

For the Germans the main considerations for their fleet in the 1930's was political. Whilst the senior officers of the Reichsmarine/Kreigsmarine may have been aware of the lessons of Jutland, the principal director of their activities -Adolf Hitler - certainly was not.[/quote]

Nelson and Rodney did incorperate many of the Lessons of Jutland and other WWI Naval actions. This was still more true of the KGV Class which were very well armoured, especially in terms of their decks. Above all, perhaps, the RN relearnt the lesson that it is as much about the men as the ships and by WWII the RN was much less subject to over centralisation and lack of initiative and even more agressive than in WWI.

Technology is very important, of course, as are numbers, but so is tactical skill, high morale and intelligent agression.
Ted

The checking of fire presumably due to the guns being ''offsighted'' on one arm of the zigzag pattern. But that was dictated by the alleged torpedo attack, presumably in an action one on one against Rodney the maneouvering would be somewhat shallower.....

[quote="RF"][quote="lwd"]
Salvo chasing messes up your own fire control solution. Indeed if she is persuing a steady course she may actually be an easier target than the erratic one she was when Rodney and KGV opened fire.[/quote]

Point taken, but note in the DS battle after the demise of Hood both Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were zig-zagging because of reported torpedoes approaching, it didn't seem to upset too much their targetting of POW, particulary as that ship was obliged to break off the action.....[/quote]

I suspect their rate of fire went way down as a result of those maneuvers, and I think that is why their rate of fire was so much less than what we think possible. The film shows Bismarck firing at a very rapid interval; much faster than one salvo per minute. That implies that she may have checked fire from time to time.

[quote="lwd"]
Salvo chasing messes up your own fire control solution. Indeed if she is persuing a steady course she may actually be an easier target than the erratic one she was when Rodney and KGV opened fire.[/quote]

Point taken, but note in the DS battle after the demise of Hood both Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were zig-zagging because of reported torpedoes approaching, it didn't seem to upset too much their targetting of POW, particulary as that ship was obliged to break off the action.....

[quote="RF"] ... The other consideration hear is that in open battle Bismarck would be fast moving and ''chasing salvoes'' so would not be the sitting target it actually was against Rodney and KGV.[/quote]
Probably not. Salvo chasing messes up your own fire control solution. Indeed if she is persuing a steady course she may actually be an easier target than the erratic one she was when Rodney and KGV opened fire.

[quote="alecsandros"]
. Moreover, the firing pattern of Rodney was worse than Hood's.
That being said, I would argue that it would have been difficult for 2 or more 406mm shells to land on over or very near Bismarck's fw turrets, though I don't dismiss the possibility.
Regards,[/quote]

The other consideration hear is that in open battle Bismarck would be fast moving and ''chasing salvoes'' so would not be the sitting target it actually was against Rodney and KGV.

[quote="Djoser"]

If the Bismarck was lucky enough to take out Nelson's fire control it would have been very tough for KGV to turn Bismarck into a 'steaming heap of rubble' as both battleships did together, not with the fuel and time constraints KGV had and Nelson out of the fight for a crucial period of time. [/quote]

This point was raised in one of my threads some time ago. The unanimous view (including my own) was that the battle would have lasted longer, but ultimate ly with the same result, not least because there was no way for the Bismarck to get back to France.

[quote="Djoser"]
It's not necessary to sink the rival to win the duel, either, in my mind. Not at all. As in boxing. You don't have to kill the guy, just knock his ass out.
[/quote]

With respect you cannot compare war to a competitive sport. Boxing, even before the Queensbury Rules, never had the specific intent on killing the opponent.

In war you sink the enemy ship, so it cannot fight another battle. The defeated boxer still had his life and remaining boxing career.

[quote="Djoser"]
I have wondered if that first spectacular hit on the Bismarck[b] was not one but two or more shells hitting from the same salvo[/b].

[b]One-on-one with KGV the Bismarck might not have had the edge [/b]due to the exhausted crew and the steering throwing off aim, but notice straddles were nonetheless obtained by both main and aft control stations before they were knocked out.
KGV's shooting was not all that good according to the behavior of the admiral, who at one point complained he could do more damage throwing his binoculars at them. Though no doubt he was impatient at the time.[/quote]

I don't know of a definitive answer for the first hit on the Bismarck. From an article written by Bill Jurens, and a discussion with Byron several weeks ago, I remember that a ship with the firing pattern of Bismarck (which had excellent grouping) could most likely statisticaly achieve 1 shell hit at a target the size of HMS Hood at a distance of 16km.
Now, however, there is a historical precedent which shows us, again, that statistical anaylisis is just a polite way of saying "we don't know precisely what is going on, but we're trying to figure it out" :D. The precedent is battle of Mers el Kebir, when Hood landed 2 shells out of 1 salvo against Dunkerque, at a range of about ~ 14km. However, even in the Hood-Dunkerque episode, the shells hit at considerable distance (about 50meters) from each other. Moreover, the firing pattern of Rodney was worse than Hood's.
That being said, I would argue that it would have been difficult for 2 or more 406mm shells to land on over or very near Bismarck's fw turrets, though I don't dismiss the possibility.

As for the second highlighted idea, I pretty much agree with you. KGV only scored at about 11-12km from Bismarck, most of the damage to the turrets and fire control systems being done by Rodney. Without those devastating 406mm hits, I would expect KGV to receive several 380mm shells.

Regards,

I'm inclined to agree with the people who put greater weight in the decision-making to Bismarck's excellent fire control (with a fresh crew as at DS) and rate of fire than to Nelson's heavier shells and armor. It's not necessary to sink the rival to win the duel, either, in my mind. Not at all. As in boxing. You don't have to kill the guy, just knock his ass out.

Not even getting into the Bismarck's greater speed, or greater ability to absorb punishment overall, due to much better subdivision, 10,000 tons extra displacement, and greater weight of armor. The Nelson may have had thick armor but it would require less hits to knock the ship out nonetheless, and the engines were more vulnerable. Just compare the total weight of armor in both ships to see my point. Though of course the Nelson was this way partly by design with the three turrets forward. The thicker turret protection I would say would be the one big advantage the Nelson had. But all that extra tonnage of heavy armor plate on Bismarck wasn't just for show.

But that forward arrangement would make me nervous if I were the Nelson's commander going at it with Bismarck alone. If a fire got going from a hit between any two turrets it could get bad, maybe not blowing up the ship but causing the flooding of two magazines at once, and the loss of 2/3rds firepower instead of 1/2 as occurred with Nelson's [i]extremely[/i] 'lucky' hit taking out two forward turrets and fire control at once.

A single 4 shell salvo falling closely around those three turrets could conceivably even take them all out at once! Another impossible bit of luck? Well, why not, look what happened in the real campaign with all the damned lucky hits.

I have wondered if that first spectacular hit on the Bismarck was not one but two or more shells hitting from the same salvo.

I am pretty sure that Bismarck took out Hood's fire control before blowing her up (though of course I wasn't there). The survivor on the compass platform (Briggs?) described human body parts falling past from above, and if a hit blew body parts out the fire control center, I doubt the fire control would have worked so well! There were then a total of four very 'lucky' hits in the air attacks and two gunnery battles! Two for each side. Two fire control stations, a magazine, and a rudder. Not counting all the twists of fate and timing with the sightings, etc.

I am also inclined to think that almost any heavy shell hitting almost any turret (but maybe Yamato's or Iowa's) would knock it out, if only from jamming or shaking up the gunlaying, etc. Sure a turret could maybe survive a hit in some cases, as a few of you pointed out--but I'd sure rather not be in it to find out, or depend on its firing afterwards either.

If the Bismarck was lucky enough to take out Nelson's fire control it would have been very tough for KGV to turn Bismarck into a 'steaming heap of rubble' as both battleships did together, not with the fuel and time constraints KGV had and Nelson out of the fight for a crucial period of time. No slight intended to the magnificent ship Bismarck by using that phrase, but by god that is what happened to him.

One-on-one with KGV the Bismarck might not have had the edge due to the exhausted crew and the steering throwing off aim, but notice straddles were nonetheless obtained by both main and aft control stations before they were knocked out. Hell the Baron might conceivably have done some serious damage if he'd been able to fire that next salvo or two on target, before the copula was shot off above him. Of course at that point the game was long over.

KGV's shooting was not all that good according to the behavior of the admiral, who at one point complained he could do more damage throwing his binoculars at them. Though no doubt he was impatient at the time.

[quote="Thorsten Wahl"]i had used the navweaps data for Mark I Rifling with MV 2575 f/s. As i see now, both riflings were used at the same time on both ships. Seems both 30,1 deg and 33,5 deg AoF is possible, if gun was new.[/quote]


The Navweaps 33.5 deg AoF is for a gun with [i]APMV = 2,525 fps (770 mps)[/i].

i had used the navweaps data for Mark I Rifling with MV 2575 f/s. As i see now, both riflings were used at the same time on both ships. Seems both 30,1 deg and 33,5 deg AoF is possible, if gun was new.