Bismarck analysis
Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 9:56 pm
Gentlemen,
I wasn’t sure where to place this so started another topic,
First of all my thanks to Wadinga for pointing me at the analysis of Bismarck, her development and final battle, I found it fascinating and if I may say so answers many of the points that have been made about her in this Forum. But it also raises some more which I have identified below
First of all it does state that Bismarck was a much updated version of the WWI Baden but surprisingly says that her guns were designed for close range actions in the North Sea against the RN and the armour system on Bismarck had been optimized for effectiveness in relatively close-range gunnery actions, although it was inadequate to protect against long-range shellfire’ which suggests the Germans were thinking of another Jutland type action instead of out in the Atlantic which may account for her being ‘a lively gun platform and unpleasant yawing and rolling in following seas’ and although it does not seem to have disturbed her shooting, I wonder if she really was designed to fight in the relatively shallow North Sea whether the open Atlantic had a bearing on her behaviour.
If so it is puzzling as to why the Germans designed a ship apparently for this type of action instead of one that was designed to operate and fight in the Atlantic under totally different conditions.
It adds, ‘The German design theory for torpedo defence systems was based on tests on sections on the old pre-dreadnought Preussen in the early 1930s’, ‘analysis of survivor testimony has led us to conclude that the German battleship's torpedo defence system was only marginally effective against British aerial torpedoes and vulnerable to surface-launched torpedoes containing greater explosive charges’, which would probably account for the recognition that the sterns of German ships had a weakness and the article concludes that ‘after the torpedo hit ‘part the stern collapsed upon the rudders’ which probably meant that nothing could have been done to save her from the inevitable.
As for the final battle, much has been written in the past about the thickness Bismarck’s armour versus the penetration capabilities of British shells, the article states ‘ despite the close range at which most of this action was fought we have found that the 50mm main deck armour of Bismarck was penetrated by two of the 16-inch shells from Rodney, once penetration occurred, the 50mm armour deflected the shells downward, enhancing their ability to penetrate the main armour deck directly below due to their more nearly normal angles of impact’.
‘We believe Rodney did most of the serious damage to Bismarck’, her 2,048-pound shells were extremely effective at ranges of 2,500-8,000 meters and could easily penetrate any vertical armour surface of Bismarck’.
Regarding Rodney’s shooting it says’ Rodney's gunnery was very accurate in these opening moments, before she began to have difficulty in ranging. King George V, with her more modern equipment and radar, also found her target early and between 0920-0924 hit Bismarck with a number of her 14-inch shells’.
If Rodney opened fire at 0847 and disabled Bismarck’s forward turrets at 0902 in a raging gale then surely this contradicts those that claim she took a long time to find the range?
It adds, Near the end of the battle, when Bismarck was completely defenceless, King George V closed to 3,000 meters, at which range her 14-inch armour piercing shells could penetrate all of Bismarck's vertical armour’.
’It is important to remember the relatively close ranges at which this last battle was fought, Bismarck's side armour was theoretically vulnerable to the 14-inch guns of the King George V inside ranges of 15,000 yards and vulnerable to the 16-inch guns on Rodney at even greater ranges’. ‘Bismarck's conning tower was shielded by 350mm armour, which was riddled by close-range British battleship gunfire’.
’Bismarck was very vulnerable to long-range gunfire; Admiral John Tovey's decision to engage her at close range increased the probability of shell hits, but made it more difficult for his shells to penetrate her vitals’. Our observation of the wreck indicated that the superstructure was devastated by shell damage.
‘As a practical matter, Bismarck was vulnerable to penetration by British heavy calibre shellfire throughout almost all of the final engagement’. ‘Survivor testimony has indicated that the main battery turrets were all struck by 14 or 16-inch shells and were disabled by 0930’ So it would appear that either Bismarck’ armour was not so invulnerable as some think and that the British heavy shells were not as bad as some have made out!
As for the RN ships, the article also states that the KGV class were acknowledged as being incapable of defeating either Bismarck or Tirpitz in single combat and needed a 2 to 1 advantage, I find this to be a rather damming statement of the newest RN ships and one has to wonder why the RN did not build a bigger, faster, updated and up-armoured version of the QE’s within the 35000 ton limit, or even go the whole hog and design a Vanguard type with the tried and trusted twin 15” turrets instead of messing about with untried guns and turrets just before a war broke out? After all the Germans, French, Italians, Japanese and Americans all exceeded the treaty limit so even if the RN designers went over the top by a few thousand tons who is going to try and weigh a battleship? (or was it a can’t do that old boy, it’s not British, we stick to the rules?)
However, the article does say that Bismarck (and presumably Tirpitz) was vulnerable to long range fire, so it might be interesting to speculate what the outcome may have been had Tirpitz been engaged at long range by Duke of York which had a good radar system (assuming of course all of DoY’s guns kept working!)
The assessment of an Iowa against Bismarck was correct, her speed, manoeuvrability, heavy shells and the ability to hit at long range would have totally outclassed either Bismarck or Tirpitz, but again it is comparing a more modern ship against one of an older design (shades of Hood V Bismarck).
Finally the question of whether she was scuttled, If she was then as I have said in another post it would take some incredibly brave men to go down to the bottom of the ship while it was being shot to bits and full marks to them if they did. However, when discussing the original findings by Robert Ballard he found ‘the wreck of Bismarck is upright, embedded in silt to about the normal waterline’. ‘It will probably never be possible to determine with more accuracy the performance of the battleship's side protective system during her sortie into the North Atlantic’.
Presumably scuttling charges are set near the inlet valves and sea cocks somewhere near the bottom of the ship, so it is difficult to see how anyone could assess whether the charges has been fired if the ship was as Ballard said ‘embedded in silt up to the normal waterline’?
In conclusion, it seems to me that Bismarck was a very fine ship, fast, well-armed and armoured and quite probably the best ship of her era and capable of tackling any battleship ship in the early 1940’s,But she was not without faults both in her design or build and in the end it was one relatively small torpedo from an antiquated biplane that caused her demise and it is fitting that we should pay tribute to those brave men on Bismarck who had to face up to the inevitable destruction of their ship for hours before the final battle, we can only speculate what is must have been like to see two heavy battleships coming at you from the horizon and knowing it was impossible to get away.
Anyway, that’s my bit, thanks again to Wadinga for guiding me to the assessment, perhaps some of you chaps might like to answer the questions that I put in the above.
I wasn’t sure where to place this so started another topic,
First of all my thanks to Wadinga for pointing me at the analysis of Bismarck, her development and final battle, I found it fascinating and if I may say so answers many of the points that have been made about her in this Forum. But it also raises some more which I have identified below
First of all it does state that Bismarck was a much updated version of the WWI Baden but surprisingly says that her guns were designed for close range actions in the North Sea against the RN and the armour system on Bismarck had been optimized for effectiveness in relatively close-range gunnery actions, although it was inadequate to protect against long-range shellfire’ which suggests the Germans were thinking of another Jutland type action instead of out in the Atlantic which may account for her being ‘a lively gun platform and unpleasant yawing and rolling in following seas’ and although it does not seem to have disturbed her shooting, I wonder if she really was designed to fight in the relatively shallow North Sea whether the open Atlantic had a bearing on her behaviour.
If so it is puzzling as to why the Germans designed a ship apparently for this type of action instead of one that was designed to operate and fight in the Atlantic under totally different conditions.
It adds, ‘The German design theory for torpedo defence systems was based on tests on sections on the old pre-dreadnought Preussen in the early 1930s’, ‘analysis of survivor testimony has led us to conclude that the German battleship's torpedo defence system was only marginally effective against British aerial torpedoes and vulnerable to surface-launched torpedoes containing greater explosive charges’, which would probably account for the recognition that the sterns of German ships had a weakness and the article concludes that ‘after the torpedo hit ‘part the stern collapsed upon the rudders’ which probably meant that nothing could have been done to save her from the inevitable.
As for the final battle, much has been written in the past about the thickness Bismarck’s armour versus the penetration capabilities of British shells, the article states ‘ despite the close range at which most of this action was fought we have found that the 50mm main deck armour of Bismarck was penetrated by two of the 16-inch shells from Rodney, once penetration occurred, the 50mm armour deflected the shells downward, enhancing their ability to penetrate the main armour deck directly below due to their more nearly normal angles of impact’.
‘We believe Rodney did most of the serious damage to Bismarck’, her 2,048-pound shells were extremely effective at ranges of 2,500-8,000 meters and could easily penetrate any vertical armour surface of Bismarck’.
Regarding Rodney’s shooting it says’ Rodney's gunnery was very accurate in these opening moments, before she began to have difficulty in ranging. King George V, with her more modern equipment and radar, also found her target early and between 0920-0924 hit Bismarck with a number of her 14-inch shells’.
If Rodney opened fire at 0847 and disabled Bismarck’s forward turrets at 0902 in a raging gale then surely this contradicts those that claim she took a long time to find the range?
It adds, Near the end of the battle, when Bismarck was completely defenceless, King George V closed to 3,000 meters, at which range her 14-inch armour piercing shells could penetrate all of Bismarck's vertical armour’.
’It is important to remember the relatively close ranges at which this last battle was fought, Bismarck's side armour was theoretically vulnerable to the 14-inch guns of the King George V inside ranges of 15,000 yards and vulnerable to the 16-inch guns on Rodney at even greater ranges’. ‘Bismarck's conning tower was shielded by 350mm armour, which was riddled by close-range British battleship gunfire’.
’Bismarck was very vulnerable to long-range gunfire; Admiral John Tovey's decision to engage her at close range increased the probability of shell hits, but made it more difficult for his shells to penetrate her vitals’. Our observation of the wreck indicated that the superstructure was devastated by shell damage.
‘As a practical matter, Bismarck was vulnerable to penetration by British heavy calibre shellfire throughout almost all of the final engagement’. ‘Survivor testimony has indicated that the main battery turrets were all struck by 14 or 16-inch shells and were disabled by 0930’ So it would appear that either Bismarck’ armour was not so invulnerable as some think and that the British heavy shells were not as bad as some have made out!
As for the RN ships, the article also states that the KGV class were acknowledged as being incapable of defeating either Bismarck or Tirpitz in single combat and needed a 2 to 1 advantage, I find this to be a rather damming statement of the newest RN ships and one has to wonder why the RN did not build a bigger, faster, updated and up-armoured version of the QE’s within the 35000 ton limit, or even go the whole hog and design a Vanguard type with the tried and trusted twin 15” turrets instead of messing about with untried guns and turrets just before a war broke out? After all the Germans, French, Italians, Japanese and Americans all exceeded the treaty limit so even if the RN designers went over the top by a few thousand tons who is going to try and weigh a battleship? (or was it a can’t do that old boy, it’s not British, we stick to the rules?)
However, the article does say that Bismarck (and presumably Tirpitz) was vulnerable to long range fire, so it might be interesting to speculate what the outcome may have been had Tirpitz been engaged at long range by Duke of York which had a good radar system (assuming of course all of DoY’s guns kept working!)
The assessment of an Iowa against Bismarck was correct, her speed, manoeuvrability, heavy shells and the ability to hit at long range would have totally outclassed either Bismarck or Tirpitz, but again it is comparing a more modern ship against one of an older design (shades of Hood V Bismarck).
Finally the question of whether she was scuttled, If she was then as I have said in another post it would take some incredibly brave men to go down to the bottom of the ship while it was being shot to bits and full marks to them if they did. However, when discussing the original findings by Robert Ballard he found ‘the wreck of Bismarck is upright, embedded in silt to about the normal waterline’. ‘It will probably never be possible to determine with more accuracy the performance of the battleship's side protective system during her sortie into the North Atlantic’.
Presumably scuttling charges are set near the inlet valves and sea cocks somewhere near the bottom of the ship, so it is difficult to see how anyone could assess whether the charges has been fired if the ship was as Ballard said ‘embedded in silt up to the normal waterline’?
In conclusion, it seems to me that Bismarck was a very fine ship, fast, well-armed and armoured and quite probably the best ship of her era and capable of tackling any battleship ship in the early 1940’s,But she was not without faults both in her design or build and in the end it was one relatively small torpedo from an antiquated biplane that caused her demise and it is fitting that we should pay tribute to those brave men on Bismarck who had to face up to the inevitable destruction of their ship for hours before the final battle, we can only speculate what is must have been like to see two heavy battleships coming at you from the horizon and knowing it was impossible to get away.
Anyway, that’s my bit, thanks again to Wadinga for guiding me to the assessment, perhaps some of you chaps might like to answer the questions that I put in the above.