Bismarck a Baden Class?

[Karl Heidenreich]

Was the Bismarck a descendant of the Imperial High Seas Fleet Baden Class BattleCruiser?

[Matthias]

Do you mean the battleships of Bayern-Baden class?

[Karl Heidenreich]

Yes. Baden.

[Matthias]

Well, someone think it was, mostly because of their 380mm guns.

But, apart the fact that the guns weren't the same but completely new ones, I found Bismarck and Scharnhorst classes construction in many aspects more similar to the battlecruisers of the Von Der Tann and expecially Lutzow class, then not to the Bayern one.Expecially regarding compartimentition and protection, more then artillery caliber.

Anyway this is my impression, I could be mistaken.

[Ulrich Rudofsky]

I think that most would agree that very few ships, if any, are designed from scratch. They seem to be generally developments and compromises of successful predecessors. And mixed in is a dose of political and admiralty good and bad advice and demands. But to say that Bismarck was just a suped-up BAYERN Class is incorrect according to many sources. In those years between the launching of the BAYERN and the BISMARCK the international community of naval architects did a lot of research. Take a look at Marine Arsenal 6 and the B. Hoyer articles on this site http://www.kbismarck.com/articles.html . An other useful contemporary source is "Kriegsschiffbau" H. Evers, Springer Verlag, 1st ed. 1931 or 2nd ed. 1943 (This books has a six-page set of the BAYERN plans at 1:500).

[Matthias]

Indeed, there's also this aspect.

[Karl Heidenreich]

I found this "Baden" heritage in a book called "World War II Warship Guide" by a Robert Henson and published by Chartwell Books.
Henson, with whom I don´t agree, stated also that Bismarck was a poor design built only as a comerce raider and not as a surface combat vessel. He points that the rudder, steering gear and radio were left almost unprotected, as examples of design blunders.
I wonder how can the Bismarck´s designers could have protected the rudder, the propellers and steering gear? As a matter of fact I found, for example, Yamato´s single rudder design more vulnerable.
And considering the amount of armour that Bismarck had in relation to her whole displacement I really found that the statement that she wasn´t unprotected is a folly.
Moreover she can´t be considered only a raider. Her accomplishments at Denmarck Straits (and her potential to sink PoW) puts Bismarck among the greatest batteships of all times.

[Dave Saxton]

..........Henson, with whom I don´t agree, stated also that Bismarck was a poor design built only as a comerce raider and not as a surface combat vessel. He points that the rudder, steering gear and radio were left almost unprotected, as examples of design blunders..............

The German battleships were among the few battleships, along with the newer American ones, that had any significant armour protection for the steering gear rooms above the rudders, from shell fire. See the protection diagrams for Bismarck on this site. The steering gear rooms were enclosed with armour. A transverse armoured bulkhead just aft of the steering gear rooms extended from the tank tops to the battery deck. The roof over the steer gear rooms was armoured with Wh. Over this the oberdeck was armoured to this point aft with Wh.

The lack of shell fire protection for the steering was a weaknesss exhibited by many other -non German battleships.

[Matthias]

Indeed.Not much tima ago me and Antonio had a discussion about the damage inflicted by the famous torpedo to Bismarck's steering gear, during which he explained me what kind of dmage was.Really it doesn't seem to me the kind of damage due to a lack of protection...

[Ulrich Rudofsky]

There isn't anything you can do against a hit like that.

Ref: "The Bismarck Encounter" W H Grazke and R O Dulin, drawing by T G Webb, a "Naval History Symposium" at the US Naval Academy in September 1991 and published in "Marine Technology" in October 1993. The copied illustration is from "Schlachtschiff Bismarck: gesunken, gerettet, gefangen" by Josef Statz, Verlag Tebbert KG, 3rd ed, 2001.

BTW, great book by a great survivor.

[Karl Heidenreich]

As I said, I don´t agree with Henson statements. On the contrary, I support the truth that says that Bismarck´s heavy armour in relation to her overall displacement makes her one of the great battleships of WWII. In this very site one can check that against the armour of other navies`similiar vessel.
By May 1941 Bismarck was the most modern and complete battleship.

[marcelo_malara]

I remember reading that Bismarck´s exterior hull form was taken in part form Baden/Bayern, so they hadn´t to do again all the calculations.

[Dave Saxton]

Baden was a much smaller ship. Bismarck was about 50,000 tons at a full load and had 308% more propulsive power on tap. Baden had a length to beam ratio of 6.3:1, but Bismarck's was 6.7:1. I'm not sure that any hull form calculations between the two designs would be of any use at all?

How does Scharnhorst enter into all this? I see the Bismarck as a design that corrected many known or precieved short comings in the Scharnhorst design. Bismarck is certianly closer to the design of Scharnhorst, than baden in both time period, and scale.

[Karl Heidenreich]

After all these months I must admit that there are some familiarities between the Baden Class and Bismarck. At least Bismarck´s resembles more a Baden Class than Graf Spee.

[Tiornu]

There is no direct line of descent between Baden and Bismarck. It was just two design teams, widely separated by time and requirements, who came up with solutions bearing a superficial resemblance.
As I've mentioned before, there was one feature that was exactly the same in both ships--the kitchen.