Bismarck's armor against long range hits

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck's armor against long range hits

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:40 pm

Of course, my mistake. Gneisenau was hit at 23:15 on February 26, 1941 and blew up at around 23:40, according to Whitley.

My question still stands: did the bomb penetrate the main armor deck of the ship ?


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3904
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck's armor against long range hits

Post by dunmunro » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:15 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:40 pm
Of course, my mistake. Gneisenau was hit at 23:15 on February 26, 1941 and blew up at around 23:40, according to Whitley.

My question still stands: did the bomb penetrate the main armor deck of the ship ?


Bye, Alberto
"...Gneisenau was hit at 23:15 on February 26, 1942..."

G&D state that the RAF dropped 1000lb GP bombs which have very limited AP capability, so it seems unlikely.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck's armor against long range hits

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:40 am

Hello everybody,

yes, again my mistake re. 1941 vs 1942... Who knows why, I have 1941 in mind... :think:

Here Whitley's pag 177-178 account:
"...It was enough for at 23:15 one bomb hit Gneisenau in the vicinity of "A" turret which caused large casualties to the turret crew and the damage control parties below.
The bomb struck and penetrated the upper deck forward of "A" turret and was deflected aft by the longitudinal armoured bulkhead at frame space 185,6, subsequently exploding on the armoured deck by a hatch and ventilation trunk, in the seaman petty officers' mess. The vertical bulkhead was ruptured and fire spread to the forward crew space through this hole, but the bomb did not penetrate the armoured deck. This was distorted by the force of the explosion. However, the hatch to the 28 cm magazine is believed to have been open (it could not subsequently be found) and the flash and splinters entered the magazine.
About 25 minutes after this first hit, a second huge explosion occurred, thought initially to be a second bomb hit. It was subsequently decided that this was in fact caused by the ignition of fuel gas and fumes in the tank spaces by the earlier bomb hit. This explosion ignited and blew out all the contents of the magazine and a huge jet of flame issued from "A" turret which was totally burned out. The upper deck was torn up.....
...Damage control parties flooded the section aft of "A" turret (i.e. "B" magazine and shell rooms, as well as reserve "A" magazine, thus preventing further explosion. A huge fire raged...."
If this is the case, not only the deck resisted to penetration (as G&D and Koop accounts seem to confim), but there was IMO a severe damage control failure, not inspecting and flooding (I guess some water against fires was available on board even in a dry dock... and 25 minutes are a large time interval even without pumps from sea water) immediately "A" turret magazine after the first hit, while fires were raging in this part of the ship.

Does anybody have more precise info (like a damage report or any official document) describing what happened ? Was any inquiry done ? With which results ?


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

lightyear
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:07 am

Re: Bismarck's armor against long range hits

Post by lightyear » Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:33 am

Thorsten Wahl wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:40 pm
1) against 50 mm + 80 mm
ther were several perforations on Scharnhorst(La Pallice) and Tirpitz (Tungsten)but no detonations
the double impact on wheather deck and main armor deck obviously rendered all fuzes from 1600 lb armor piercing bombs into duds.

2) against 50 mm + 110 mm
all bombs that hit break off at the armored deck


3) Special case Gneisenau the bomb was thrown from larger altitude (stationary target in dock - no battlestations(kein Klarschiffzustand))
:dance: Got it, Do you know what a usual penetration of the 1600lbs AP bomb? I mean on a certain altitude xx mm?

Post Reply