Bismarck and her contemporaries

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by RF »

phil gollin wrote:Your basic idea would not be agreed with by the RN.

The guns were to disable a ship, the torpedoes were to let the water in.

Not quite in line with Hollands' intentions for the DS battle.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by lwd »

madmike wrote:it is not surprising that 60+years on,the armchair admirals would be out in force,,here is a INDISPUTABLE fact about the bismarck.SHE WAS THE ONLY BATTLESHIP OF THE WAR THAT DID EXACTLY AS SHE WAS DESIGNED TO DO...TO GO OUT AND ENGAGE CAPITAL SHIPS(BB,BC)OF A ENEMY FLEET AND SINK BY HEAVY GUNFIRE)
Actually I believe she was told to avoid that.
NO OTHER BATTLESHIP IN WW2 can claim that.yes there were so called better ships,BUT NONE OF THEM SUNK ANOTHER BATTLESHIP BY GUNFIRE.
As pointed out Washington did. Several other battleships disabled opposing battleships. Duke of York for instance would probably have sunk Scharnhorst but why bother when the DDs and put her down more efficiently? Like wise Yamashiro was hamered by heavy gunfire. Then there were the French battleships put out of action by the British and Jean Bart who had she been operational and at sea almost assuredly would not have survived the damage she took.
...but never engaged enemy BB,BC in one on one battle.....
Engaging an enemy battleship one on one is a pretty strong indicator that one or both parities have screwed up. No body liked to send them out alone indeed the Germans were the only ones that did so that I know of and that was because they had little other option.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by alecsandros »

lwd wrote: Engaging an enemy battleship one on one is a pretty strong indicator that one or both parities have screwed up. No body liked to send them out alone indeed the Germans were the only ones that did so that I know of and that was because they had little other option.
WHile I think mostly the same way, in the end the most important role a battleship could play was to engage and destroy/badly damage a similarly powerfull opponent.
After all, this was the way Mahan envisaged them firstly, and the reason why the naval arm-race developed for 70 years: every naval power wanted the most heavily armed, armored and fast ship it could possibly build.
The only sufficient test for a "good" battleship, in the terms described above, was engaging a similar enemy.

Thus being said, neither Barham nor Hood (at Mers-el-Kebir), Washington, Massachussets or Duke of York did engage similar opponents. They engaged either sitting ducks (ships on anchor in harbors) or battlecruisers...

The only ones were Bismarck, Pow, and Hood during Denmark Strait. And we all know what happened.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by lwd »

alecsandros wrote:
lwd wrote: Engaging an enemy battleship one on one is a pretty strong indicator that one or both parities have screwed up. No body liked to send them out alone indeed the Germans were the only ones that did so that I know of and that was because they had little other option.
WHile I think mostly the same way, in the end the most important role a battleship could play was to engage and destroy/badly damage a similarly powerfull opponent.
No. The most important role they could play was to help defeat an enemy fleet. They were part of a combined arms team. US doctrine was to send out pairs of battleships and escort them properly as was British and for that matter Japanese.
... The only sufficient test for a "good" battleship, in the terms described above, was engaging a similar enemy.
I disagree. Extend that defintion and none of the current US nuclear subs are demonstrably "good". A "good" ship is one that adds significantly to the capabilities of the navy of which it is part.
Thus being said, neither Barham nor Hood (at Mers-el-Kebir), Washington, Massachussets or Duke of York did engage similar opponents. They engaged either sitting ducks (ships on anchor in harbors) or battlecruisers...

The only ones were Bismarck, Pow, and Hood during Denmark Strait. And we all know what happened.
If you want to quibble like that Hood was a battle cruiser and POW wasn't worked up yet and by the way Kirishima was rated as a battleship. So in your battleship vs battleship actions you've got Rodney and KGV doing what they were desinged to do to Bismarck and the latter failing though understandably in that regard. Similarly you've got Duke of York disabling Scharnhorst and the latter failing.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by alecsandros »

lwd wrote: No. The most important role they could play was to help defeat an enemy fleet...
That may have been the overall goal, but specificaly, batleships were built to be able to destroy battleships.
The British built the Nelson's as a response to the Nagato's. And the Americans designed the North Carolina's with Nelson class in mind. The Japanese trumped them all, designing 18" gun ships.
The way I see it, you can't separate battleship evolution from battleship competition... Which was in fact a competition between the super-powers...
Extend that defintion and none of the current US nuclear subs are demonstrably "good".
I was talking specificaly about battleships. That's why I brought Mahan into question. A battleship not capable of engaging a contemporary enemy was not a "good" battleship in the overall sense of the term...
If you want to quibble like that Hood was a battle cruiser and POW wasn't worked up yet and by the way Kirishima was rated as a battleship. So in your battleship vs battleship actions you've got Rodney and KGV doing what they were desinged to do to Bismarck and the latter failing though understandably in that regard. Similarly you've got Duke of York disabling Scharnhorst and the latter failing.
Hood was a 48000t ship with 8x15" guns and 12" belt and a fully worked up crew. PoW was a 44000tons battleship with 10x14" guns and 15" belt.
Both were manouvreable and able to fight.
Kirishima was a 36000 ton ship with 8x14" guns and 8" belt.

It is at least weird to put Kirishima in a class above Hood (battleship vs battlecruiser). Accepting blindly the way an udnerdog navy designated it's ships just to appear as having more numerous capital ships, is not a good option, IMO.

As for DoY vs Scharnhorst:
DoY 45000tons battleship, 10x14" guns, 15" belt. Scharnhorst 39.000tons, 9x11" guns, 13.5" belt.

So, again, I don't understand how you can view these combatants as "comparable"... ?
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by Bgile »

alecsandros wrote: ... So, again, I don't understand how you can view these combatants as "comparable"... ?
Has there ever been a fight between "comparable" battleships? I don't think so.

I also don't think that PoW's armor would have done much better than Kirishima's at 8,500 yds.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by dunmunro »

Bgile wrote:
alecsandros wrote: ... So, again, I don't understand how you can view these combatants as "comparable"... ?
Has there ever been a fight between "comparable" battleships? I don't think so.

I also don't think that PoW's armor would have done much better than Kirishima's at 8,500 yds.
Some other match ups:
Renown versus S&G
Warspite and Giulio Cesare (this seems pretty close in terms of specs)

Depending on the inclination of the ship, KGV's belt armour might have stopped some of the 16in hits, but more importantly, since she was an AoN design many of the hits would have simply passed through without fusing.
JtD
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by JtD »

Considering that Kirishimas unprotected superstructure fused shells, I'd say that PoW would have fused them as well.

The nominal armour penetration at that range was ~600mm, so not even somewhat increased obliquity is going to save PoW from getting the hull ripped open.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by dunmunro »

JtD wrote:Considering that Kirishimas unprotected superstructure fused shells, I'd say that PoW would have fused them as well.

The nominal armour penetration at that range was ~600mm, so not even somewhat increased obliquity is going to save PoW from getting the hull ripped open.
OK, well according to NAaB at 8500 yds and 1952fps the nominal penetration of a USN 16/45/2700lb projectile, of UK CA armour is 20.3 inches. At 45 deg inclination, this drops to 12.4in for complete penetration and 13.9in for partial penetration so it is quite possible that a KGV belt could stop hits, even at that range. Additionally, the above calculation assumes an MV of 2300fps, but of course it would have been less than this and the average range somewhat further.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by Bgile »

dunmunro wrote:
JtD wrote:Considering that Kirishimas unprotected superstructure fused shells, I'd say that PoW would have fused them as well.

The nominal armour penetration at that range was ~600mm, so not even somewhat increased obliquity is going to save PoW from getting the hull ripped open.
OK, well according to NAaB at 8500 yds and 1952fps the nominal penetration of a USN 16/45/2700lb projectile, of UK CA armour is 20.3 inches. At 45 deg inclination, this drops to 12.4in for complete penetration and 13.9in for partial penetration so it is quite possible that a KGV belt could stop hits, even at that range. Additionally, the above calculation assumes an MV of 2300fps, but of course it would have been less than this and the average range somewhat further.
and the average target angle was less than 45 degrees.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by dunmunro »

Bgile wrote:

and the average target angle was less than 45 degrees.
As I said, it depends on the target inclination, but depending on the range and angle of fall of the shot and the area hit, the total inclination could equal 45 degs, even though the target inclination was somewhat less than this. The point is, that you can't simply assume penetration, even at close ranges, without considering target and total effective inclination.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by dunmunro »

madmike wrote: ...the british KGV class ships didnt have the armour to protect them or speed or gun range,(hoods 15" guns range was 7000 yards less,and the POW,s 14" guns were 5000 yards less than bismarcks)...
KGV had thicker belt and deck armour than most WW2 battleships.

The maximum range of the KGV 14" was 38600 yds, while the maximum range of Bismarck's 38cm guns was 39100 yds, a difference of 600 yds...while Hood's 15" guns had a range of 30,200 yds. However, conditions to allow ranges beyond ~26K yds were pretty rare in the North Atlantic and both Hood and PoW actually opened fire at longer ranges than Bismarck.

Regarding speed, I think you need to get up to speed on this topic yourself by reading these threads:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3008
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1602
JtD
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by JtD »

dunmunro wrote:OK, well according to NAaB at 8500 yds and 1952fps the nominal penetration of a USN 16/45/2700lb projectile, of UK CA armour is 20.3 inches.
Ok, well, according to other calculations it is more.
At 45 deg inclination, this drops to 12.4in for complete penetration and 13.9in for partial penetration so it is quite possible that a KGV belt could stop hits, even at that range. Additionally, the above calculation assumes an MV of 2300fps, but of course it would have been less than this and the average range somewhat further.
And at 90° inclination it is about 0. But that of course is as irrelevant as 45°, considering that it was a broadside engagement where Washington inflicted most of the damage.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by dunmunro »

JtD wrote:
dunmunro wrote:OK, well according to NAaB at 8500 yds and 1952fps the nominal penetration of a USN 16/45/2700lb projectile, of UK CA armour is 20.3 inches.
Ok, well, according to other calculations it is more.
At 45 deg inclination, this drops to 12.4in for complete penetration and 13.9in for partial penetration so it is quite possible that a KGV belt could stop hits, even at that range. Additionally, the above calculation assumes an MV of 2300fps, but of course it would have been less than this and the average range somewhat further.
And at 90° inclination it is about 0. But that of course is as irrelevant as 45°, considering that it was a broadside engagement where Washington inflicted most of the damage.
It was most definitely not a broadside engagement and Kirishima had a considerable inclination from Washington:

http://www.usswashington.com/washingtonguadalcanal.pdf
see page 36.
JtD
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by JtD »

That's exactly where I got the information from. Washington started 65° off Kirishimas bow and ceased firing 85° off the stern, therefore a classic drive by shooting, with most of the damage done from a position almost exactly to the side of Kirishima.

Now if you want to add vertical inclination to reach a 45° degree figure, you'd need between 40° and 45°. A sip listing that bad is capsizing, even if you subtract 10° of belt inclination.
Post Reply