Karl Heidenreich wrote:...
And it is not what Combined Fleet say...
But neither it is what the Bismarck mythology sustain.
WGarzke wrote:On the rudders - The starboard rudder was not bent into the race of the center propeller by the torpedo hit. One has to carefully study the testimony of Gerhard Junack who I had some written correspondence with before his death. He claimed that he left the middle engine room with the shaft slowly turning. He made that statement in 1948 in an article in the Royal Institution of Naval Architects on the Bismarck by Dr. Oscar Parkes. If the rudder structure had been jammed into the center propeller as some have said, that shaft would not be turning at all after the torpedo hit. The torpedo hit the starboard rudder. Some debris from that rudder did enter the race of the centerline propeller, chipping its blades. This accounts for the raising of floor plates in the middle engine room. If you read the Baron's book on actions taken to steer the ship using the propellers, he does mention that the center shaft was used in that effort. I am convinced that when the ship hit bottom or slid down the slope of the seamount that rudder structure was bent into the propeller race. I have made this point to James Cameron. The nagging question is how did the port rudder become free and in doing so leave a clean hole that is not marred by any bending action as the rudder and its shaft left the ship. It is not clear just what was done in the damage control efforts after this hit. In talking with the Baron, he was not aware to the degree of the activities done to regain the steering ability. The Baron did have an opportunity to discuss this with Gerhard Junack, but one must understand that the Baron was not a technical man like Junack. His book was written from the perspective of an officer, not an engineer. I do believe that the options that he described in his book were some of the ideas advanced by desperate individuals wanting to see some sort of steering function restored. The use, for example, of a submarine to steer the ship is not possible - a 750-ton submarine providing the steering for a 50,000-ton battleship?
Speed of the Bismarck after the rudder damage. For a brief time (circa 0700) Junack was in the main propulsion control station on 27 May. He asked Captain Lindemann on what should be done with the propulsive power. Lindemann responded, "Ach, do what you like!" Junack was concerned over the turbines and ordered slow ahead. Now it is rather doubtful if the speed was more than 7 knots in that storm. That speed likely was less as the ship could not maneuver and was taking various headings due to wave action. In fact, the ship motions from yaw were very significant. Added to the roll and pitch, this would have made many persons seasick. Those motions would also play an important part in the gunnery battle.
Djoser wrote:Getting back to the AA effectiveness...
Obviously, as pretty much resolved in this thread, the AA was unsatisfactory in the situations it was to be tested by--and obviously this was the case with pretty much all the AA in all the navies' battleships at that time.
But what about the very slow flight speed of the Swordfish? I have heard that this, ironically enough, made it much harder for them to be hit, since the AA on the Bismarck was designed to shoot down faster, more modern aircraft. It does seem surprising that not a single plane was shot down, even if the AA left something to be desired, it was still better than the AA on the older US battleships at Pearl Harbor, which did shoot down some planes, after all.
It is interesting to see the contrasting claims of the Bismarck's detractors and propagandists. The first claiming it was nothing special, a mere improvement of the Baden class, with many glaring defects--oh sure!
I have an otherwise very excellent and very well illustrated book on warships, published in England, which goes on at great length about all the things that were wrong with the ship. Which, of course, was why the British weren't at all worried about 'his' sortie, and were quite relaxed when they took measures to stop 'him', right?
Another otherwise excellent book from England also classifies the German 11" shell hits at Jutland as "medium calibre" hits in a comparative table--thus granting the British a much greater number of "major calibre" hits than their opponents, hahaha.
But then you often see the propaganda put out by popular TV documentaries and such, which ought to concern themselves with reading a few more documents, perhaps. This is where you see the 'Bismarck as Death Star' approach, which of course is ludicrous.
Well sorry if I have restated the obvious a bit here, but I did want to ask if anyone knew anything about the AA being designed to shoot down modern planes instead of antiquated biplanes...
I've not seen anything concrete to document this "swordfish too slow" argument
I think if you really want to compare ships of one class you have mainly two options:
You can go along and judge on the possible outcome of tactical situations that might have been possible. That leaves you with a classic one on one. Like: would USS Texas have been able to stand up even to a Tirpitz long enough for a convoy of fast liners to disperse? Yes or no? If ‘yes’ she was a very good design proving her value well into old (for a BB) age leaving Tirpitz a bit of an underachiever.
Or – the approach I do like better – you look at the tactical situation a ship was designed for. And judge by percentage of achievement.
USS Iowa: a fast Carrier Escort, a landing operations sledgehammer and a long, long lasting multi purpose weapons platform. Yes! Worked very, very well!
Scharnhorst: a dual role: either home water defence or long range raid unit. Did not work out! Undergunned and unreliability problems with the machinery.
Bismarck: … hahaha – you did not really think I would dare to judge without carefully, carefully thinking this through. I think there is a tarred and feathered smily out somewhere.
pdfox99 wrote:The Port rudder was actually lodged into the center screw. Whether it happend during the torpedo explosion, or during impact onto the ocean floor we don't know for sure.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests