BISMARCK armor scheme = BADEN?

[Djoser]

So which 8" cruiser hit was it that 'rendered Bismarck half-impotent'?

The one that took out her rudders?

Oh wait, that was the 3rd or 4th torpedo hit, after several air strikes against him. After he kicked the the asses of not one but two battleships supposedly equal in power. Then had to take on a 3rd and 4th battleship without being able to manuever. Not to mention all those cruisers (fully capable of knocking him out at any time, of course).

This is not the 1st time I have seen a reference to cruisers supposedly being able to take down the Bismarck, due to that 8" shell we keep hearing about. That supposedly penetrated her conning tower, was it? I don't buy it, unless the hit was made at 5,000 yards maybe, and I'm not convinced even then.

If the Bismarck was so vulnerable to 8" shells, Rheinbung would have been a very different story indeed.

[Dave Saxton]

Both Bismarck and Scharnhorst took hits to the firecontrol station on top of the foretop. Just the luck of the draw. All battleships are equally vulnerable to this type of hit. South Dakota's Spot I was also out of operation after all the small and medium caliber hits it had taken. In all cases it would/did take away the primary radar set for radar ranging as well as the primary (in the German case the day) optical equipment. It is necessary to mount firecontrol optics and electronics high up, and at the top of the foretop or above somekind of superstructure are the most logical places. These vital positions cannot be afforded heavy armour protection (which probally would not stop them from being disabled anyway), having at best splinter protection, and they are dislocated from the main citadel. Nothing unique about such vulnerabilities to German designs at all. In the cases of Bismarck, Scharnhorst, South Dakota, and also almost all other battleships, the centralized firecontrol (brain) is located deep below decks within the citadel, but the firecontrol stations for the optics and the radars and so forth, must be located at relatively exposed positions. Enough shells flying around, and these exposed positions will later, or in some cases sooner, take hits.

[Djoser]

Right, I fully agree that the Achilles Heel of all BBs would be the fire control positions (and rudders too perhaps).

But the Bismarck's main fire control (already rendered less effective by the steering problem), located on top of the superstructure tower, was not taken out by an 8" shell hit, as I understand the course of the battle. It was a 16" shell from the Rodney that did that, pretty early on, from what I have read (shortly after 9 AM?).

The 8" shell hit (that we keep hearing about as proof of Bismarck's vulnerability) supposedly pierced the conning tower, an event I am skeptical actually took place at longer range, if at all.

Of course the fire control stations on top of all BBs superstructure towers, being less heavily armored to reduce stability problems, were all vulnerable to lower caliber shell hits.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Of course the fire control stations on top of all BBs superstructure towers, being less heavily armored to reduce stability problems, were all vulnerable to lower caliber shell hits.

AMEN!

[Dave Saxton]

There’s no way that an 8” could penetrate the conning tower at any range, unless it passed through an open door way. The CT was 350mm KC (an equivalent to about 17” Class A). Moreover, as far as I know there’s no indication of a full penetration of the CT by any caliber shell on the wreck itself.

A penetration of the CT would probably not take out Bismarck’s central firecontrol anyway. The ships central firecontrol and gunnery systems could continue to fight on from their centers and communications below the panzer deck, as long as they were still fed with accurate targeting data and observations from one of the top side fire direction stations.

The foretop fire direction station was destroyed, from whatever source, (Traditionally the consensus has been a cruiser hit), almost simultaneously with the BB hits against the forward battery. The loss of the foretop fire direction station, as well as a probable temporary disabling of Albrecht’s forward station, may have much to do with the early loss of both forward turrets as well as the subsequent unfolding of events. Anton was more or less dependent upon centralized firecontrol, or Bruno, not really being equipped to continue on under local control by itself.

Upon re-reading von Muellenheim, I notice some interesting testimony paraphrased of a USN observer aboard Rodney:

Campbell could follow the flight of the British 40.6 cm shells with his naked eye: black dots growing smaller on their trajectory. As the five dots from Rodney’s ( salvo) were on the point of vanishing he was horrified to see their number almost double, as the Bismarck’s ( salvo) appeared on reciprocal trajectory in a two way race for seconds to shatter the enemy’s armor and morale, a breathless duel that would decide life or death-and that the Rodney would win; for her five shells raised only three waterspouts and the Bismarck’s turret Bruno disappeared behind flame and smoke after the impact of two shells….Bismarck’s on racing shells grew in size…a straddle a perfect straddle, port and starboard amidships, throwing great walls of dirty water over the Rodney…..

Another interesting claim by LT. Campbell was that he observed Anton destroyed much later by a direct hit from Rodney at a range of 6,000 yards.

[Djoser]

Wow, it's been a while since I read the Baron's book, could be time to revisit. Great passage, thanks Dave!

I can only imagine how effective that 8" cruiser's shells would have been against a Bismarck able to maneuver and fire back with full control, and without 2 battleships and another cruiser firing at him from all directions.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Djoser:

I can only imagine how effective that 8" cruiser's shells would have been against a Bismarck able to maneuver and fire back with full control, and without 2 battleships and another cruiser firing at him from all directions.

That has been my point from a long time ago. Another point that I have made, to all the Bismarck detractors, is how well another battleship would have performed given the same circumstances. At least we know that SD will very likely have a complete blackout from small and medium caliber shells severing her exposed cabling and internal comunication lines (demostrated at II Guadalcanal) before her thin (38 mm) upper armored deck give way to the enemy's shells inside. I consider that it is more likely, given these circumstances, that SD could have sunk from gunfire as in contrast to Bismarck which didn't.

[Dave Saxton]

I need to make a correction. Lt. Campbell was RN not USN.

[Thorsten Wahl]

I read it somewhere that according Mr Campbell the british miss an impact of a shell so its possible that two shells hit bismarck and possibly the 2 shells disabled Anton and at times Berta

[lwd]

Lee:

But it does no such thing. Your quote indicates that they believed the Bismarck's to be something other than "mere copies". However that doesn't mean that they aren't heirs to that design. Indeed no one has been arguing that they are "mere copies" and most of the Baden air arguments I've seen on this thread represent them as clear improvements over the Baden design.

You really should learn not to use strawmen so frequently.

Lee, for God's sake! I am quoting Garzke and Dullin directly on a direct, contextualized, issue! Only you can think or regard this as an strawmen, man!
....

I guess I missed the part where you quoted Garzke and Dullin as stating Bismarck was a "mere copy" of Baden.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Lee,

not a problem.

[lwd]

...
This argument has been done so many times.

That's for sure.

The USN fans will never acknowledge that Bismarck was a good battleship,

Depends on who you are calling USN fans.

the best in 1941 and that Tirpitz was clearly superior to all the USN Treaty battleships and, also likely, their Iowa Class battleships.

That's because those are highly debateable propositions.

What happen at DS is a "black hole" for them and will try to demerit the Bismarck doing there.

Where do these fantasy "fans" reside? Certainly not on this board.

.... that both, SD and Iowa shared and inadequate internal sloped armor and a compromised ATS system, bad compartment distribution, narrow beam that affected the citadel defense, and a very thin upper armored deck.

That's because in isolation these hypothesis are rather meaningless.

And they knew all these issues which is why they centered their support almost in two factors:
....
2. The super heavy 16" which is very usefull against USN designed AoN ships but not space arrayed armour schemes like Bismarck's.

??? No one has come close to proving that the US superheavy rounds would not have been effective vs Bismarck. Indeed given that Rodney's much lighter ones were this seems like a very problematic assumption.

Answered those two issues we are back to base one where there is no clear USN superiority to the German Bismarck Class or the Japanese Yamato Class.

So the fact that German fire control radar may have been close to that of the US means the Yamato's are superior??? Certainly the USN was supperior by any reasonable definition to either or these classes indeed even in combination.

Let's remember that the only surface combat feat the USN fans can quote is a dubious encounter at Truk where two 50K ton battleships bravely engaged a puny destroyer Nowaki without hiting it and without clearly dominated the shooting... using their own argument: it could have been just luck. At least Bismarck sunk the biggest warship by 1941 and put a brand new battleship on the run with it's bridge blown.

That's a very distorted and biased way of putting things. It's also rather inaccurate. Unfortunatly it's what I've learned to expect on these topics from you.

[lwd]

Lee,

not a problem.

Then why did you post just the opposite?

[Dave Saxton]

I read it somewhere that according Mr Campbell the british miss an impact of a shell so its possible that two shells hit bismarck and possibly the 2 shells disabled Anton and at times Berta

Yes, we have a reliable witness claiming it was a double hit. This opens several more possible scenarios.

[lwd]

We have one witness. It's not clear how reliable he was or how he made his judgment of two hits. On the otherhand weren't there several who stated one hit? Certainly Occam's razor would favor one hit rather than two from the same salvo each taking out a forward turret.