Bismarck speed during last battle

[Tiornu]

Your argument is that extensive damage in the upper hull (but not perforating the upper belt!!!)

Penetrations of the upper belt would be a great way to cause damage in the upper hull. Not only do you have the damage from the shells, but the upper belt armor is a great source of splinter damage.

But sinking deeper in the water diminishes the chance of capsizing too.

As lwd has already pointed out, all added weight will cause the ship to settle. If that weight is above the center of gravity, the ship becomes less stable.

What puzzles me is why Bismarck "sank" deeper in the water, so that the main armour deck became eventually lower than sea level.

I don't know why this is puzzling. Portions of Bismarck's armor deck are below the waterline all the time--that's part of the compromise in her design. Even the uppermost portion of the deck is only a small distance above the waterline.

This amount of water could however not come in because of the small number of fractures caused by 4 torpedo hits (2 by SF and 2 by D) against the main belt, 1 against the rudder section or the 5 piercings in the hull (2 of PoW and 3 of R/KGV.

Only one aerial torpedo hit the main belt. It would have caused only minor flooding. I don't know why you are ignoring all the large-caliber shell hits to the upper hull.

[iankw]

The British are the least to admit it. No real sports would I say.

Good to see that xenophobia is alive and well!!

I don't know why you are ignoring all the large-caliber shell hits to the upper hull.

Really Richard? I know exactly why.

regards

[VeenenbergR]

Guys I have a problem with your arguments.

2 shells of PoW perforated the ship under the armour belt and caused 2000 tons of seawater to flow in in the forecastle area.
The hole was partly sealed and part of the water was pumped out.

Then 1 torpedo did hit the belt and caused little flooding (amidships).
End result: Bismarck remain low at her bow. Part of the armour deck forward at or below sea level.

Then the endfight started with most shells fired in first 45 minutes coming in oblique and only later flat trajectories.
Massive damage INSIDE the upper-hull because of oblique incoming shells perforating the decks BUT NOT THE SIDES (or am I wrong here???). Because few shells (3) perforated the upper belt (and this was the part wich was partly at sea level!!!!).
If according to your assumptions more shells perforated the ship sides above the upper belt this part was too high to allow seawater to pour in!!!! So according to these assumptions no substantial water could enter the hull.

At 9.35 Oels gave the command to scuttle and Bismarck slowly sank deeper in the water for an additional 60 minutes vertically before eventually capsizing and taking the last torpedo hit from D. right into her deck near the catapult.

I fail to understand that additional water was able to come in because all vertical incoming shells (and their so called massive damage in the upper hull) NOT perforated the ship plating above (or under) the belts.

Now you all perhaps understand that Bismarck sank after 200+ shell hits on decks, superstructure and the upper part of the ship hull, but the outside plating have to be holed to allow water coming in. And since also the under water teams failed to record extensive damage to the hull (outside plating) I still wonder why you all are so convinced.

Please explain were I make a logical error.

[Bgile]

There was a lot of water in bismarck's stern due to a torpedo hit there. Did you forget that?

As I understand it, the upper belt was penetrated a number of times by heavy shells. One from Rodney killed a large number of Bismarck's crew. The area between the upper and main armor decks was a shambles from penetrations of the upper belt.

There were probably a lot of holes in the unarmored or lightly armored parts of Bismarck's hull.

Several magazines had been flooded by the crew to prevent the ship blowing up. This probably eventually included all of the main and secondary battery magazines, since there were penetrating hits disabling all of the main armament and presumably starting cordite fires.

That's a LOT of water!!! It caused the ship to slowly settle, presumably puting more holes underwater. In a few more hours she would undoubtedly have sunk without scuttling.

[Bgile]

I almost forgot. There was a below belt hit from PoW which exploded, flooding one machinery space and eventually forcing the abandonment of another, which presumably also completely flooded. The explosion also opened several void compartments outside the holding bulkhead, resulting in their flooding and giving the ship a port list which was never completely corrected. In an effort to correct that list, void compartments on the other side of the ship would have had to be flooded, further reducing reserve boyancy.

[lwd]

The shock and vibration from all those hits couldn't have been good for her water tightness either. Especially when combined with fires.

[VeenenbergR]

Ok, all your comment changes the total picture somewhat for me, but I'am still not convinced.

Bismarck was flooded and counter flooded by the 2 hits of PoW taking in a lot of water (2000 tons at least). She never fully corrected this list to port!!! The torpedo's and especiallly the one against the rudder section took in even more water.
Then finally the end-duel with a listing, slow moving and irrationally curving Bismarck yielded (only) 3 hits through the upper belt (which all were obtained very late in the battle, just before 10.00, and caused hundreds of casualties, among them Commander Oels) and "a lot of hits through the unprotected hull", like Bgile wrote:

There were probably a lot of holes in the unarmored or lightly armored parts of Bismarck's hull.

This all may be true, but why don't the unterwater surveys record this (massive) damage in the hull?? They all state that there were many hits on the belt, which failed to penetrate. There is no indication that there was a same number on the unarmored parts of the hull. Question: did the upper belt stretched all up to the deck???

[Bgile]

I believe the upper belt does indeed reach all the way to the weather deck and it should be proof against pretty much everything except major caliber hits. There doesn't have to be a lot of them though. That one hit from Rodney probably resulted in flooding of a fairly large area, because when it went off it would have perforated a lot of internal bulkheads.

You are sure not required to believe that this would result in sinking, but there is no way she would ever fight another battle. USS Wasp was torpedoed and abandoned and remained afloat for quite some time until being torpedoed again by a US destroyer. What would be the point in letting her stay afloat for a long time? I'm sure the Germans felt the same way. They wanted the ordeal to end.

[Tiornu]

2 shells of PoW perforated the ship under the armour belt and caused 2000 tons of seawater to flow in in the forecastle area. The hole was partly sealed and part of the water was pumped out.

No. One shell hit below the main belt. The compartment it flooded was never pumped out, and not only that, but subsequent torpedo hits caused this flooding to spread to the adjacent compartment. Another shell hit the bow and caused flooding there. It was never pumped dry for the simple reason that two or three sizeable holes remained in the hull, and not only that, but additional water was taken aboard as counterflooding.

Then 1 torpedo did hit the belt and caused little flooding (amidships).

There were three aerial torpedo hits. One hit the belt, two did not.

Then the endfight started with most shells fired in first 45 minutes coming in oblique and only later flat trajectories.
Massive damage INSIDE the upper-hull because of oblique incoming shells perforating the decks BUT NOT THE SIDES (or am I wrong here???).

Yes, you are completely wrong. There were three or four large-caliber penetrations of the MAIN belt. The upper belt, who knows? This armor was easily penetrable by British battleship projectiles at all battle ranges. If you recall the Baden trials, a single 15in hit on the casemate level destroyed all watertight boundaries in a direct line for the full width of the ship--and that wasn't because of the shell itself, it was because of a chunk of thin armor that shot across the ship and didn't stop until it hit the armor on the other side. Meanwhile the shell had continued its path and caused normal damage one or two levels below. Any flooding in any of the affected sections could spread to all the other sections.

If according to your assumptions more shells perforated the ship sides above the upper belt this part was too high to allow seawater to pour in!

How is it possible to hit the upper hull above the upper belt?

At 9.35 Oels gave the command to scuttle and Bismarck slowly sank deeper in the water for an additional 60 minutes vertically before eventually capsizing and taking the last torpedo hit from D. right into her deck near the catapult.

British shells had already penetrated the ship's vitals by this time. And how long did it take to carry out the order? Dorsetshire's torpedo is irrelevant.

I fail to understand that additional water was able to come in because all vertical incoming shells (and their so called massive damage in the upper hull) NOT perforated the ship plating above (or under) the belts.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Please explain were I make a logical error.

Not again.

[Bgile]

Yes, you are completely wrong. There were three or four large-caliber penetrations of the MAIN belt.

Tiornu, I assume there is no way to tell whether those shells penetrated the citadel, correct? I'd expect the 12" main belt to be penetrated but if you believe Nathan Okun they wouldn't have gotten past the scarp.

I don't mean to imply by this that Bismarck wasn't in sinking condition ... just wondering whether you have any additional knowledge of those hits. As far as I know, they just found these round holes with no real indication of what happened beyond that.

[Tiornu]

Right, there's no way to say what happened to those shells. If Bill J stops by, he can comment. I think they tried to look in through the holes bit couldn't see anything.
I'm pretty much done addressing this off-topic topic. It's almost certain that Bismarck was scuttled, and it's probable that the scuttling hastened the ship's sinking. But it would have sunk anyway.

[VeenenbergR]

Tiornu.

To sum it all up:

- 3 "big" holes of the PoW causing at least 2000 tons of sea water to come in inclusive the counter flooding (A);
- 2 Swordfish torpedo's didn't hit the main belt, causing additional flooding, 1 against the belt did few/nothing (B);
- 3-4 heavy shells penetrated the MAIN belt, doing a lot of damage inside, with likeley thousands of tons extra (C);
- "many others" the thinner (but still strong) upper belt towards the main deck (D).
But please note that all the "D" hits were ABOVE SEA LEVEL with few chances that a lot of extra water could came in.

These hits caused the sinking of the Bismarck because so much seawater could pour in that Bismarck started to sink.

- the scuttling ordered about 9.35 hastened this process;
- 2 additional torpedo's of the Dorsetshire later also hastened this process.

So the sinking of the Bismarck is mainly based upon those 3-4 heavy shell hits!! These hits occurred around 10.00. Bismarck was also sinking from 10.00 on. Conclusion: Bismarck WAS sunk by gunfire!!!!! Never thought that a few heavy shells could sink this German juggernaut. GREAT.

But if the citadel was totally intact ???

Now I am curious how all others think about all the arguments, because I simply can not believe that the damaged Bismarck was sunk by a few heavy shells which were able to perforate the main armour belt. Bismarck was a very big ship and very well compartimentalized.

[Tiornu]

Really Richard? I know exactly why.

Bro, you may be right. The evidence is mounting.

[Bgile]

Are you under the impression that the citadel has to be flooded for a battleship to be sunk? One study of a US battleship determined that it might lose stability and sink if the entire stern area outside the citadel was filled with water.

In your summaries you keep leaving off the part that the main and secondary magazines were probably flooded. That's inside the citadel. The PoW hit was inside and outside the citadel.

What exactly is your point here? That Bismarck was impossible to sink short of a nuclear weapon? That if the Germans hadn't been so stupid as to sink her themselves she could have been towed back to Germany?

I actually think it's possible the scuttling delayed the inevitable sinking by lowering her GM and thereby delaying the capsizing process.

[lwd]

To sum it all up:
- 3 "big" holes of the PoW causing at least 2000 tons of sea water to come in inclusive the counter flooding (A);

Perhaps. Perhaps more or less. But also additional damage to structure in the area.

- 2 Swordfish torpedo's didn't hit the main belt, causing additional flooding, 1 against the belt did few/nothing (B);

Torpedo hits that go high order don't do nothing. They may not cause damage that's of immediate concern but they do cause damage. And it's not just letting in water.

- 3-4 heavy shells penetrated the MAIN belt, doing a lot of damage inside, with likeley thousands of tons extra (C);

I believe that's 3 or 4 known to have penetrated the main belt. Others may have.

- "many others" the thinner (but still strong) upper belt towards the main deck (D).
But please note that all the "D" hits were ABOVE SEA LEVEL with few chances that a lot of extra water could came in.

Above sea level when Bismark was undamaged and not in heavy seas. In her actual state that is more than likely not the case. Also note that hits in unarmored bow and stern especially POW's as depth increases are subjected to greater water pressure and may result in additional flooding. Especially if vibration, shock, and fire cause greater weakness.

So the sinking of the Bismarck is mainly based upon those 3-4 heavy shell hits!! These hits occurred around 10.00. Bismarck was also sinking from 10.00 on. Conclusion: Bismarck WAS sunk by gunfire!!!!! Never thought that a few heavy shells could sink this German juggernaut. GREAT.

A great example of a strawman. Amazing what misstatements and faulty logic can result in.