Bismarck Myths

[Karl Heidenreich]

A picture is worth a thousand words. Look at the photo at the bottom of pg 12 in this thread:

I tried but it leads to a navweaps forum with only 6 pages. Maybe is th wrong link,

[Bgile]

[Also we have the numerous facts on the superiority of Yamato, which, point by point, has not been addressed only with superficial notions such as trying to make believe that the Japanese behemoth was vulnerable to USN's 16" at ranges in which no ship has an IZ against another one.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Look at the photo at the bottom of pg 12 in this thread:

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... 04?page=12

Odd. It works for me. It's in the topic on returning battleships to service/Closing the Gap: (etc) on the last page (12).

[Karl Heidenreich]

I got it!

Yep, looks weird, you know? First thing because it was never performed in combat, which would be a reason to put it as a monument. And also because according to Nathan Okun that should not happen:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm

Maybe there are also other concepts that are wrong here.

And it seems that you need to attack Yamato with a plunging fire of a superheavy shell from 30,000 yards which is distance that no USN battleship never, ever, achieved a hit... nor any warship in the world. Again: only Scharnhorst and Warspite achieved what the USN gunnery manuals would describe as "almost extreme" hits. And Yamatou could pierce Iowa's armor at almost any range because, as Richard Worth put it once: Iowa DO NOT have an IZ when engaging Yamato.

As this is OT in extreme, I leave it there.

[Bgile]

Again: only Scharnhorst and Warspite achieved what the USN gunnery manuals would describe as "almost extreme" hits.

In 1940. You don't think anything changed througout the war. Warspite and Scharnhorst used 1930's technology. But of course noone can improve on that. Ever.

[Dave Saxton]

Again: only Scharnhorst and Warspite achieved what the USN gunnery manuals would describe as "almost extreme" hits.

In 1940. You don't think anything changed througout the war. Warspite and Scharnhorst used 1930's technology. ....

Why would 1943 FC produce better long range results than Scharnhorst in 1940?

[dunmunro]

Heroism as well as cowardice are not monopolized by a single nation.

I never suggested or infered otherwise.

By context and reference to Sir Richard Grenville I do have the feeling that Lutjens and Lindemann might have got a little more out of Bismarck than they did.
At DS for example if Lutjens had not delayed opening fire would he have sunk Hood before POW found Bismarck's range and hit her?

And on 27 May again if some of the main armament gun crews had been allowed some proper sleep and Lutjens again didn't delay opening fire on Rodney, what would have happened if Bismarck clobbered Rodney with heavy hits first? The end result would have been the same but with greater loss to the British. And of course there was that chance on 27 May to have sunk Norfolk.

One of the things that I have a hard time with is that RN accounts do state that Bismarck opened fire at the same time as Pow. It is one of those unresolved things that nags at me, as not being properly explained. I rather doubt that Lutjens would have insisted that Bismarck hold her fire prior to the final battle but Bismarck, like the RN had to wait until the range declined enough to obtain at reasonable idea of the enemies range, since salvo spotting was very difficult in the prevailing weather and wind conditions.

0553 (B). Heavy gun flashes bearing 185°. Half a minute later Bismarck opened fire to port.
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09suff.htm
5. Fire was opened at 0553, half a minute after Hood. A list of fire control signals made prior to opening fire is attached, as is also the zone time of each salvo fired by Prince of Wales on Form S.1148(f) with the number of guns fired in each salvo.
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm
and Geoffrey Brooke, in Alarm Starboard states that Bismarck opened fire between PoW's first and 2nd salvo.

[paulcadogan]

Duncan,

You've made a point that I've always wondered about. How the discrepancy in the timing of Bismarck's opening salvo in the D/S occured and was resolved. Early British accounts have Bismarck replying immediately to Hood's opening fire with PoW following. "The Hood fired first. She was followed a second later by the Bismarck and then by the Prince of Wales. Within one minute.....all three ships had opened fire." - my recollection of the description in Bradford's "Mighty Hood". This is generally supported by the Board of Inquiry transcripts.

HOWEVER - if Bismarck opened fire at 5:52-53, how come she only fired 5 salvoes up to 6:00? That is an astonishingly poor rate of fire for a ship of her capabilities. The British accounts all attribute the first hit on Hood to be from Bismarck's third salvo which was said to have straddled. It is timed at about 5:55. So...after ripping into Hood within 2 minutes, Bismarck only managed 2 salvoes in the next 5 minutes? I don't think so! Prinz Eugen's fire is scarcely mentioned.

The German account is where the 5:55 timing comes in, and Prinz Eugen landing the first hit in under a minute. Overall, the German account makes much more sense time wise and I guess that's why it's accepted today.

With these supposed flaws in the early British account, the timing of Holland's order to shift target right is also questionable. As I've said before elsewhere, it is my belief that it did not take place until after Bismarck opened fire, clearly identifying herself. It explains why the Prinz was under fire for so long.

Paul

[Bgile]

We also have the film showing Bismarck firing very rapidly.

[Thorsten Wahl]

Is the film available at youtube?
nominally the achieved ROF is far behind maximum ROF, even if we consider shoot in.
is it custom at what salvo Schneider comands "gut schnell"

[alecsandros]

The reason for the presumed slow rate of fire from 5:55 to 6:00 was that Bismarck was testing the range. If the firing solution isn't good, it is useless to fire very many projectiles over a given area, as they would hinder further notice of enemy's position, distance, speed.

Hood was straddled at around 5:59-6:00, and then came the order to rapid fire the main guns. One very important and often disregarded fact about Bismarck;s main battery:
- while Hood was being struck by 1-2 380mm shells that destroyed her, another salvo from teh same group of turrets was already in the air.
That means the reload time was lower than the time needed for the first 4 shells to get to the target (22-24s depending on the range you're using).

[Karl Heidenreich]

Let's remember that Bismarck's fifth salvo was not the first to hit the Hood. Both, PE and Bismarck hit Hood several times, one destroying the spotting top and another at the base of the main tower (killing about two hundred sailors). We have a hit that started a fire on the weather deck too. According to the survivor's account Hood was in a pretty serious situation because it was being straddled by Bismarck continously. The impression given in Bruce Taylor's book on Hood was that it was doomed, even if the fifth salvo didn't blew her she would have been destroyed anyway.

I concur with Alecsandros' comments and we can check the firing sequence using Antonio Bonomi's superb article which is posted in this same site:

http://www.kbismarck.com/ds-barticle.pdf

[Bgile]

Let's remember that Bismarck's fifth salvo was not the first to hit the Hood. Both, PE and Bismarck hit Hood several times, one destroying the spotting top and another at the base of the main tower (killing about two hundred sailors). We have a hit that started a fire on the weather deck too. According to the survivor's account Hood was in a pretty serious situation because it was being straddled by Bismarck continously. The impression given in Bruce Taylor's book on Hood was that it was doomed, even if the fifth salvo didn't blew her she would have been destroyed anyway.

I concur with Alecsandros' comments and we can check the firing sequence using Antonio Bonomi's superb article which is posted in this same site:

http://www.kbismarck.com/ds-barticle.pdf

I think Antonio pretty much just figured out how many salvoes must have been fired and spread them out over the given time. There was no way he could have known which salvoes were fired when. I'm sure there were pauses, periods of slow firing, and periods of good rapid.

[RF]

I concur with Alecsandros' comments and we can check the firing sequence using Antonio Bonomi's superb article which is posted in this same site:

http://www.kbismarck.com/ds-barticle.pdf

Looking at this article, it is very detailed, but seeing Lutjens being credited with Raeder's job as commander in chief of the KM set warning bells ringing about its accuracy.....

[paulcadogan]

Looking at this article, it is very detailed, but seeing Lutjens being credited with Raeder's job as commander in chief of the KM set warning bells ringing about its accuracy.....

Remember it's a translation from Italian, and Lutjens could be thought of Tovey's opposite number (C-in-C, Home Fleet vs. "C-in-C German Fleet"). The proper term should have been Fleet Commander, but don't let that put you off.

Let's remember that Bismarck's fifth salvo was not the first to hit the Hood. Both, PE and Bismarck hit Hood several times, one destroying the spotting top and another at the base of the main tower (killing about two hundred sailors). We have a hit that started a fire on the weather deck too. According to the survivor's account Hood was in a pretty serious situation because it was being straddled by Bismarck continously. The impression given in Bruce Taylor's book on Hood was that it was doomed, even if the fifth salvo didn't blew her she would have been destroyed anyway.

Let's not exaggerate Karl. There were only two definite hits on Hood - the boat deck hit and the fatal one - and two suspected based on largely circumstantial evidence totalling four. I'm not sure which survivor described Hood as being straddled "repeatedly". The consensus from all the testimony is 5 salvoes with the third and fifth straddling - two straddles. Only one salvo from Prinz Eugen was recorded by observers, falling astern of Hood. But the 5 minute time frame for these salvoes is much more realistic that the 8 minute one for the early accounts.

Prior to the fatal blow, the hits received, assuming they all occured certainly created a nasty scene topside. But had the fatal hit not taken place Hood was far from finished. Her command structure was in place, central fire control (conning tower director and TS) still operating, full main armament function, helm intact, and aged boilers and engines driving her at an amazing 29 knots (based on PoW's reported speed). Granted, one shell put paid to all that, but what I'm getting at is that because she blew up in actuality does not mean that outcome was inevitable. Graf Spee could have blown Exeter out of the water in the same way, but it didn't happen then. Luck of the draw....no myths!

[Karl Heidenreich]

Hi Paul,

Sorry I got this until now. Later today, I promise, I will bring forward Bruce Taylor's account on Hood's destruction from his interviews of the survivors. This shows, pretty well, the situation in which Hood was during the battle and it's desperate status.

However, it is clear that four shells hit Hood during the battle, as follows:

First Hit: At 5:56 am Prinz Eugen hit Hood on the Boat Deck forward of the Mainmast, initiating a fire.

Second Hit: At 5:57 am Bismarck hit the Fire Control Tower.

Third Hit: At 5:58 am Prinz Eugen hit the base of the Main Tower, killing a couple of hundred of sailors that took refuge of the shelling there.

Fourth and Fatal Hit: At 6:00 am Bismarck hit Hood a little after the Mainmast destroying her.

This information is coherent with Antonio Bonomi's article of the battle, which I don't think there is anything more accurate on this regard.

On the Prince of Wales side, despite the delusionist arguments of some, the brand new battleship also fell straddled by the German ships getting hit continously:

First Hit: Bismarck hit first at 6:02 am (just two minutes after the destrucction of Hood) at the Compass Platform. We must remark that when Bismarck destroyed Hood and started firing on PoW, not a single shell from the British Battleship hit again Bismarck.

Second Hit: At 6:03 am Prinz Eugen hit below the waterline very close to the rudder machinery room.

Third Hit: Also, at 6:03 am Bismarck hit again PoW beneath the Bridge.

Fourth and Fifth Hits: At 6:04 am score TWO hit, one below the waterline near one of the propeller shafts and then on PoW's deck near the extreme aft secondary starboard turret.

Sixth Hit: At 6:04 am Bismarck hit PoW at the aft stack.

From 6:02 to 6:04 six shells found it's target, three per ship. During that same period of time PoW didn't found target at all. Moreover, despite the claims of the delusionists that she (PoW) could still fight and destroy Bismarck, her captain orders the withdrawal and launching of a smoke screen.

Six hits in two minutes vs. none. We also need to add the reports of mechanical malfuncions of the quadruple mounts of PoW.

Conclusions:

1. Bismarck and PE did straddle Hood early in the combat.

2. PoW also found it's target quite early and did damage Bismarck early. However the damage, to be fatal in the long run of events, was not combat serious and did not affect Bismarck's inmediate fighting capability.

3. Hood is blown by Bismarck's fifth salvo, after being hit three times earlier with terrible results.

4. PoW lost her capacity to straddle or hit Bismarck after 6:00 am.

5. Bismarck and PE straddled PoW and put a serioues shelling on her until she withdraws behind a smoke screen.

6. The combat is a German tactical victory that could have been greater if Lutjens would have given LIndemann's permision to pursuit PoW. (Hypothetical matter today, but one that outweights by far the "PoW would have won over Bismarck folly".

Later I will produce BruceTaylor's information.

Regards