Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships

[tommy303]

The French used British shells, or were able to use British shells, after the US refit. That gave longer flying times, decreased belt penetration and increased deck penetration. Source for the bad French shells?

The French never used British 15" shells which would have required lapping out the bores (reducing barrel life) to 381mm to accept the British shells. French records indicate that the guns remained 380mm and used shells manufactured to French specifications by the Crucible Steel Company in the USA. The American shells utilized US designed fuzes and fillers.

[lwd]

First time she fired were the trials and there was no problem.
Read up on this in the meantime, thanks.

Don't know if I misremembered something or read a bad source. Here's a link for those interested:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNFR_15-45_m1935.htm

[tommy303]

It is probable that the initial firing trials and test firings in June of 1940 were performed with inert practice rounds, and hence there would have been no apparent problems. When problems did show up, it was with fuzed and filled war munitions and the problem was eventually traced to the weak base plugs which ruptured and allowed propellant gases to prematurely detonate the shell filling.



To amend my earlier statement, British HE shells were sperically produced for the French 380mm guns very late in the war for shore bombardment. The APC was American made.

[alecsandros]

Made up through greater thickness.

The 16" perforation of the entire deck system of Jean Bart at Dakar shows that the difference wasn't compensated. The normal perforation for that shell at 20-22km was 124mm, while the compounded thickness of JB's deck system was ~ 160mm.

Bismarck lost 50% of her artillery to a single shell hit as well.

Exactly the point. The same hit from Rodney would have taken out 100% of Richelieu's main battery.

60% of the ships length was well protected against torpedoes.

How was it well protected if the citadel covered 54% ?

- problems with the machinery, making the designed ~ 180.000shp not-attainable after corrections and revisions in the US (140.000 shp was the new maximum)

Source for unattainable? And what you call "corrections and revisions" I'd call "improvisation".[/quote]
Garzke&Dulin comment upon the machinery's unreliablilty. After the US refit, the full power tests were limited below 140.000 shp. But probably Dumas's "French battleships" is a better source on this. I don't have the book...

Source for the bad French shells?

The explosion of one gun barrel in Richelieu, in 1940. The subsequent investigation traced the problem to faulty shell design.

Anyway, imo the Vanguard and Jean Bart were more powerful than the Bismarck and Tirpitz ever were.

Vanguard had less powerfull guns than Bismarck/Tirpitz. It's con tower was not armored against battleship fire, and the hull was not able to resist the pressures of a full load, hence the limitation at 48500 tons displacement. In terms of citadel protection, the German system provided better protection of the vital components, while Vanguard's offered a somewhat better protection for all the elements in the citadel's volume.

I also think that, depending on the purpose, Richelieu can very well be judged as more powerful than the Tirpitz.

IN a direct engagement, the Richelieu would have very few advantages over Tirpitz, and IMO that wouldn't make it "more powerfull" at all.
Excessive dispersion, lower rate of fire, and shorter citadel would be quickly exploited by Tirpitz.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Friedman confirms the comments and statements that Alexandros have done. Also Raven and Roberts. The Richelieu was, as all the allied battleships of it's time, by the displacement limitations of the Treaties. The idea of having quadruple turrets concentrated at the front is not the result of a combat requirements but those of weight saving: the shorter the lenght to protect the citadel the better. Also two turrets reduced considerably the stress on the support structure for the barbette-turret elements.
The Richelieu has been overrated because of it's similarity to other Treaty battleships in it's armor scheme: the AoN armoured box. This distintive layout worked in non limited designs as the Yamato Class, in which the massive use of armor gives the necesarry protection it's designers considered a priority. However the 35,000 ton limitation do not allowed other navies (that respected the Treaty in the first place) to developed the doctrine as they wished. So, in theory, if it worked in those Treaty limited vessels then it must have worked for Richelieu.
We know now that's not correct and has been discussed at lenght for some time in this forum.

Regards,

[JtD]

Made up through greater thickness.

The 16" perforation of the entire deck system of Jean Bart at Dakar shows that the difference wasn't compensated. The normal perforation for that shell at 20-22km was 124mm, while the compounded thickness of JB's deck system was ~ 160mm.

At 22 km it was more like 140mm. And you think that Bismarcks 115mm compound strength would have been enough to keep the shell out? I don't.

Exactly the point. The same hit from Rodney would have taken out 100% of Richelieu's main battery.

No, because of the larger gap between the turrets that hit could not have happened to Richelieu.

How was it well protected if the citadel covered 54% ?

Because the compartment immediately in front of the citadel was protected by a non-armored bulkhead, the extension of the citadels armored bulkhead, and filled up with water exclusion material.

Garzke&Dulin comment upon the machinery's unreliablilty. After the US refit, the full power tests were limited below 140.000 shp. But probably Dumas's "French battleships" is a better source on this. I don't have the book...

In which book do G&D comment, please? Was it maximum power that was reduced to less than 140k or was it overload power? I've seen no definite statement, G&D simply show trial results of 1951/1952 where the ship managed in excess of 30 knots at 135k. I'll be looking into Dumas.

The explosion of one gun barrel in Richelieu, in 1940. The subsequent investigation traced the problem to faulty shell design.

Workaround found a day later, shell design fixed later in the war.

IN a direct engagement, the Richelieu would have very few advantages over Tirpitz, and IMO that wouldn't make it "more powerfull" at all.
Excessive dispersion, lower rate of fire, and shorter citadel would be quickly exploited by Tirpitz.

The "excessive" dispersion could be limited to 300m at 26500m and low rate of fire is only a limited drawback. As to the relative merits of the protection of these ships, you could probably fill a book with a decent comparison and come out without a winner. If you, for instance, apply the damage Bismarck sustained at Denmark straight to the Richelieu, you'd find that there'd be less effect - one the bow due to the lack of a 60mm belt and the 40mm armour deck Richelieu had while Bismarck had the belt and no armoured deck there, and in the midship section due to the deeper torpedo protection system with a holding bulkhead behind the armoured one on Richelieu.

You would need to define the more "powerful" you're trying to show. As it is, Richelieu was more powerful, because the machinery developed more power. From that perspective, there's little room for argument. Broadside was heavier, too. Are you comparing "as is", meaning a 100% ready Bismarck with a 95% ready Richelieu or are you comparing "what if" and both ships 100% ready. Are you limiting yourself to 1940-1945 or are the late BB's valid. Is it down to what happens in a direct battle or is it a more meaningful evaluation of the overall strength of the ship?

[Lutscha]

According to Jordan and Dumas the hit that penetrated the magazine hit at 33° according to damage analysis. JB received flooding through bombs prior to the hit and the resulting list seems to be the cause for such an angle rather than the extreme range needed. At such an angle penetration of her 150mm and 40mm decks is not that unlikely since the shell hits with greater striking velocity than it would have at a range of 30k yards where it already penetrates more than 6 inch of the best deck armour steel. 7 inch don't seem unlikely at that range an angle.

I have already posted this in the past, but some people seem to be more comfortable to ignore Dumas and Jordan because this would inidcate a horrible quality of french homogeneous armour.

Btw, Friedman does not confirm anything about JB or R in his book about US battleships, since they are not part of it.

Edit: BS' decks would not have a stopped a 16 inch superheavy striking her deck at 33° with about 1600 fps striking velocity.

Edit2: JB achieved 32,1xkn at 176shp, something BS could never hope to reach.

[phil gollin]

...........Vanguard .......... It's con tower was not armored against battleship fire, and the hull was not able to resist the pressures of a full load, hence the limitation at 48500 tons displacement. In terms of citadel protection, the German system provided better protection of the vital components, while Vanguard's offered a somewhat better protection for all the elements in the citadel's volume.

No.

Vanguard's conning tower was deliberately designed on the all-or nothing protection (the actual conning position had haevy splinter protection.

The displacement limitation was purely a peacetime restriction in war it would have been ignored. (British hull stresses were a lot lower than USN ones).

The British regarded the KGVs and Vanguard as much better protected than Bismarck.

.

[phil gollin]

........... Bismarck lost 50% of her artillery to a single shell hit as well. ........

No one can confirm that (and no one has come up with a sensible explanation for it).

.

[alecsandros]

At 22 km it was more like 140mm. And you think that Bismarcks 115mm compound strength would have been enough to keep the shell out? I don't.

No and no.
US empirical formula gives 124mm STS, and that is probably exaggerated. It is more likely 110-115mm.

Bismarck's minimum compounded strength was ~ 110 mm (50+80mm), of completely different quality and arrangement than the French ships had. Throsten Whal has several very interesting posts taken from German archives, in which he explains very thoroughly the qualities of double-decked Whotan, with different tensile strengths.
Bismarck's maximum compounded strength was ~ 180-190mm (80+120mm), practicaly impenetrable by any shell at ranges < 30km.

If you, for instance, apply the damage Bismarck sustained at Denmark straight to the Richelieu, you'd find that there'd be less effect - one the bow due to the lack of a 60mm belt and the 40mm armour deck Richelieu had while Bismarck had the belt and no armoured deck there, and in the midship section due to the deeper torpedo protection system with a holding bulkhead behind the armoured one on Richelieu.

Given the shell's trajectory, what relevance does it have an armored deck.. ?

You would need to define the more "powerful" you're trying to show. Are you limiting yourself to 1940-1945 or are the late BB's valid. Is it down to what happens in a direct battle or is it a more meaningful evaluation of the overall strength of the ship?

For this discussion's sake, I'm talking about what happens in a direct battle.
Richelieu as it was in 1945 vs Tirpitz as it was in 1944 (maybe with the late war radars added)...

It is important to note that Tirpitz made firing trials at 25km, measuring very small patterns for 4-gun salvos. This coupled with the very good accuracy of German optics and late-war radars, made the battery deadly (think about the Bismarck-Hood engagement and remember the shooting was carried out before the 1943 modernization, which included tri-axial stabilization for the main battery and the ability to fire while manouvreing, a capability the Richelieu never possesed, AFAIK).
The rate of fire was not an important in the opening stages of the battle, when salvos where needed to correct the firing solution. But, once the range, speed and heading were correctly estimated, the German method of action presumed fire at the maximum possible firing rate. This was ~ 3 shells/minute/gun for Bismarck firing at ranges <20km, and about 1 shell/minute/gun for Richelieu.

Please don't take my comments the wrong way. I don't want to say Richelieu was a bad class. It's just that it wasn't up to contemporary standards, in terms of execution (the design was very intersting).

[alecsandros]

According to Jordan and Dumas the hit that penetrated the magazine hit at 33° according to damage analysis. JB received flooding through bombs prior to the hit and the resulting list seems to be the cause for such an angle rather than the extreme range needed.

The angle was not measured, but it was deduced as the necessary one for perforating that armor thickness. If you would look in the penetration tables, according to the US empirical formula, you would find 150mm+ perforation at 32.6* angle of fall. The list "due to flooding" is inconsistent with the following aspects:
- the 2 x 454kg bombs that hit JB struck more-or-less centered on the ship. There was little damage done to the bow of the ship. Hence, heavy flooding of the forward section (the only way the ship could get "nose-down") is unlikely.
- since the angle of fall at 22km for the 16" 2700pds L45 shell is ~ 25*, and on the given target geometry, a 8* list of the bow is needed to explain the perforation. How would this aspect go un-reported... ? 8* is a moderate list...
- the diagrams presented in G&D Allied BBs show a 25* angle between the 2 main perforations (150mm upper deck + 40mm lower deck).

Edit: BS' decks would not have a stopped a 16 inch superheavy striking her deck at 33° with about 1600 fps striking velocity.

Edit2: JB achieved 32,1xkn at 176shp, something BS could never hope to reach.

Why do you think BS deck's couldn't stop the 16" at 33*@1600fps ? (just asking)

[alecsandros]

No.

Vanguard's conning tower was deliberately designed on the all-or nothing protection (the actual conning position had haevy splinter protection).

I do not accept this as a counter-argument to what I have written.
I said the con tower was not able to withstand BB caliber shells. Wether this was a design trait or not is not the point here. The point is that a 380mm shell hiting Vanguard's con at 27km away will kill everyone inside, while a 381mm shell hiting Bismarck's con at the same distance would break or glance off.

The displacement limitation was purely a peacetime restriction in war it would have been ignored. (British hull stresses were a lot lower than USN ones).

This is not the picture G&D paint about it.

The British regarded the KGVs and Vanguard as much better protected than Bismarck.
.

They may have had this impression during the war. Post-war firing trials against live heavy GErman plating and against a model of Tirpitz's citadel changed their perspective.

[Lutscha]

According to Jordan and Dumas the hit that penetrated the magazine hit at 33° according to damage analysis. JB received flooding through bombs prior to the hit and the resulting list seems to be the cause for such an angle rather than the extreme range needed.

The angle was not measured, but it was deduced as the necessary one for perforating that armor thickness. If you would look in the penetration tables, according to the US empirical formula, you would find 150mm+ perforation at 32.6* angle of fall.

Do you base that on what delcyros wrote on navweaps (which is only his opinion)? It was some time ago I looked into Jordan/Dumas but Richard Worth came to the same conclusion.

Why do you think BS deck's couldn't stop the 16" at 33*@1600fps ? (just asking)

Because it hits with greater striking velocity than it would normally at this angle. The British tests I have seen don't indicate, that BS system could stop the mk 6 firing a superheavy shell at these ranges. If you increase the the striking velocity by about 150fps than it would have the shell would penetrate even more (this could only occur with listing or rolling of course).

[alecsandros]

Do you base that on what delcyros wrote on navweaps (which is only his opinion)? It was some time ago I looked into Jordan/Dumas but Richard Worth came to the same conclusion.

Who is Delycros ?

The problems of the French armor are documented. I only know about:
- the testimony of a German engineer, describing the slightly poorer quality of the French FHA.
- an analysis of the sulphur and phosphorus impurities present in French FHA, showing them to be higher than average
- the miro-crystaline structure of the French armor was unusualy large. German and British micro-crystals averaged a "5" (I don't remember the scale), while French armor averaged a "9". Larger micro-crystals lead to higher brittleness of the material.

This is what I know. There are probably other evidence available that I don't know about.

[lwd]

Vanguard's conning tower was deliberately designed on the all-or nothing protection (the actual conning position had haevy splinter protection).

I do not accept this as a counter-argument to what I have written.
I said the con tower was not able to withstand BB caliber shells. Wether this was a design trait or not is not the point here. The point is that a 380mm shell hiting Vanguard's con at 27km away will kill everyone inside, while a 381mm shell hiting Bismarck's con at the same distance would break or glance off.
....

It may or may not have done so. It almost assuredly would not have detonated in the "con". On the otherhand a hit on Bismarck's at that range may also have taken out the crew inside due to spalling. And that's only for the for con. Also note that it becomes vulnerable to penetration once you get to say 25km indeed http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Pe ... France.htm shows an effective penetration out to 26k yards and partial pentration beyond that. That's with the original shell and powder. With the US shell and powder it's penetrating at 30 k yards and partial penetrations are occuring at even longer ranges.