Bismarck with 3 triple turrets

marcelo_malara · Post by **marcelo_malara** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:31 pm

That will mean more displacement, meaning in turn more wetted area, which means more machinery which needs longer hull with more displacement yet. You will end in a ship much longer and heavier than Bismarck, like Iowa.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:48 pm

That doesn´t sound bad at all. As 1 Big Rich point: more deck also means more space to install more AA batteries. And we know, by History, that is very healthy for a surface ship to have as much AA protection as can be installed.
A 63,000 ton, 270 meter long, four triple 15" (or even 16") gun turreted, masive AA batteries Bismarck would have had a better chance of survival after Denmarck Straits. Those Swordfish wouldn´t penetrate a more dense AA fire from those extense decks, specially aft.
And it would be a very much beautifull ship also!

marcelo_malara · Post by **marcelo_malara** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:13 pm

Was Bismarck designed much before than Iowa and Yamato? I mean, may be when she was designed there was no way of building a BB so large.

ontheslipway · Post by **ontheslipway** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:38 pm

Note that an increase in flak automatically means in increase in crew for the guns and directors. Note that at that time (early WWII) more flak wasn't really considered to be that imporant. The H-class was designed with a modest flak battery, no larger than Bismarck's. Anyway, what you are describing is basically the H-class.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:54 pm

After I wrote I became aware how much this 4 triple turreted Bismarck resembles a H Plan super battleship. About the larger crew I supposse that doesn´t mean too big a problem: Bismarck could be handled by 1,600 crewmembers but for Rheinubung she had more than 2,000 aboard (even fleet officers), so in a bigger BB to accomodate a larger AA crew doesn´t post a great obstacle.

Marcelo wrote

Was Bismarck designed much before than Iowa and Yamato? I mean, may be when she was designed there was no way of building a BB so large.

Ok, let´s see.
YAMATO:
-Laid down March 1937
-Launched August 1940
-Commisioned December 1941
NORTH CAROLINA- Laid down October 1937
- Launched June 1940
Commisioned April 1941
SOUTH DAKOTA
-Laid down July 1939
-Lauched June 1941
-Comissioned March 1942
NELSON- Laid down 1922
- Launched 1925
- Comissioned 1927

I believe it was feasible.

ontheslipway · Post by **ontheslipway** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:13 pm

so in a bigger BB to accomodate a larger AA crew doesn´t post a great obstacle

Why? How do you know RheinUbung wasn't already stretching the limits? Say 10 guys per gun, that's a lot of crew and weight!

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:26 pm

Maybe you got a point there: I always thought that Bismarck at Rheinubung was too much crowded. When Hood blew she was carrying 1,100 men but Bismarck sank with much more men than that. Mullenhein Rechberg recalled that many of this were prize crews and Lütjens court.
But, let´s see: we are talking about a much bigger Bismarck here. If it is a 270 meter long BB (19 meters more than the actual Bismarck) then some extra space will be avaibable for new AA crews. And we can kick out the prize crews. Probably (likely) we can accomodate those extra crewmen in the new space and in the old one reserved for the original extra crew.
Are you sure about the number of servants per AA gun: 10? I was in the idea that one single AA gun need 3 men. And a much bigger one some 5 guys to man it:

ontheslipway · Post by **ontheslipway** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:27 am

The gun itself if manned by 2 or 3 men, but there's always a few guys running around with ammo. The IJN 25mm gun had 6 mean fetching the ammo. The 105mm gun had a crew of 6 plus ammo haulers. You also need to crew the rangefinders. (perhaps 10 on average is a bit too much, but you need a lot of guys

)

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:52 pm

If we are talking about 40 AA bateries @ 6 men per unit (because the guys running for the ammo served three or four batteries at a time) we have 240 very important crew members. Let´s say 300 with replacements and such. The whole point in this hypothetical scenario is see which one is the priority: prize crews or AA crews. The notion of Bismarck capturing ships (instead of blowing them at first sight) in the middle of the Atlantic is a bit faint because she wasn´t a raider as those auxiliary raiders. She can´t stop and risk the RN to catch her. So, the prize crews can be reduced (not to say eliminated) and replace them by AA crews. That, and the extra space those 20 additional lenght meters would give the Bismarck a more descent AA curtain.
And, seeing her with four triple 15" (or 16") turrets will put her on the top of the list for the Atlantic 1941 - 1942. Only the Nihon Kaijun will have a better ship. With that four triple turret arragement not even the Iowas would be safe on a high seas encounter.

ontheslipway · Post by **ontheslipway** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:18 pm

While we are at it, why not change the 150mm and 105mm guns to 128mm turrets? The 128mm gun has excellent range and saves the need for a dual battery

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:22 pm

The Yamato had those installed, isn´t it: 5"?

ontheslipway · Post by **ontheslipway** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:47 pm

Yamato had 4 triple 150mm turrets installed from the Mogami (converted to twin 8") and 6 twin 5" DP Guns.

Thus Yamato was able to bring both 9 16"and 9 6" guns to bear, plus its 5"guns. More or less an entire light cruiser as secondary armament. Later during the war, 2 150mm turrets were replaced by 3 5" guns each, bringing the total to 6 6" and 24 5". Note that the 5" was actually not that good in bringing down aircraft due to limited rangefinding. Yamato and the rest of the Japanese fleet did not have an alternative to the 37-40mm guns, meaning that here medium anti-air defenses were relateively weak. The allies seem to have understood the meaning of medium range flak. Still, even a ship with a formidable anti air battery as Iowa couldn't keep the Kamikaze's away.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:25 pm

Foeth wrote:

Thus Yamato was able to bring both 9 16"and 9 6" guns to bear

Maybe you mean 9 18"?

I´ll always been wondering about this 3" - 5" AA guns. Weren´t they too slow to follow and destroying a target as fast as an airplane? A machine gun (or a Bofor or Pom Pom) had a great firing rate so they hit by means of saturation but a gun shell must hit or explode in a fraction of second around the incoming enemy, being that very risky for the defender.

ontheslipway · Post by **ontheslipway** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:18 pm

a gun shell must hit or explode in a fraction of second around the incoming enemy, being that very risky for the defender.

Well, this is why a lot of directors and fire control computers were carried. The fuze time delay was set at the estimated point of intersection and would hopefully expolde in the vicinity of the aircraft. The US solved this very complicated problem with the introduction of the VT fuse; a small radar (or somesuch) detected any craft in the proximity of the shell and detonated it. This reduced the problem significantly. Still, the number if hits was still far below 10%. Hitting a fast moving aircraft wasn't really solved during WWII.

18"? yes, yes...

RF · Post by RF » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:36 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:After visiting the link 1 Big Rich displayed for us I wonder this:
Why 3 triple turrets and shortening the ship? Instead of that there can be an accomodation for Four Triple Turrets and then having the undisputed mightiest warship @ 1941. It´s obvious then that the ship might be slightly larger but that can help to accomodate aditional boilers too. The speed of 30 knots can be maintained, though, and maybe for hydrodinamics the relation can help Bismarck to be even faster. Probably that will mean a four propeller - four shaft arragement.

I suppose if you knew somebody was going for four triple turrets, then with the naval race mentality that that implies you build your battleship with five triple turrets with as per WW1 designs the fifth turret amidships abaft the funnels.

This sort of discussion comes down to the question - just how many triple turrets can you accomodate on one ship?