Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Post by tommy303 »

It was several Tallboys, including a several near misses, and the near misses did have a mining effect of huge proportions--in part because of the shallowness of the water and particularly the huge bursting charge. There may have been one or two which burst after exiting the ship, but I believe the others burst on board. Unfortunately I am away from my sources at the moment.

In the case of normal, conventional sized piercing bombs--ie in the 1000-lbs range, as would be carried by a dive bomber in most navies, the majority were actually semi armour piercing. They had bursting charges of around 15%. One exception was the German PD500 series which was a true, purpose-built AP bomb with a burster of 6.4%. You mention the problem of breaking up if the fuze delay is too long, and that may indeed have been a consideration. Indeed, the Germans went so far as to design a fuze which operated with a delay for piercing, but also with an anti-break up feature which worked instantly if the fuze pocket started to distort (as the first step in the bomb breaking up).

As to mining effect of a bomb which penetrated all the way through and out the bottom, no that is not a bad thing at all, but possibly second best to an actual burst on board below the armour decks. To a degree it would depend on the size of the charge, how far beneath the target it burst, and if the water was shallow enough to reflect a second shock wave off the sea bed and back to the target.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Post by lwd »

This converstation peeked my interest a bit and I did a bit of research. According to:
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/tirpitz/mi ... llboy.html
At the end of the war a total of 854 "Tall Boy" bombs had been dropped, of which 77 were dropped in the three attacks on the Tirpitz in September, October and November of 1944 alone. In the first attack, two direct hits on the bow was achieved, in the second only a near miss. In the decisive third attack there were three direct hits and one near miss. At the third attack, 12. November 1944, Tirpitz capsized and had to be written off as a total loss.
77 tall boys! including 5 direct hits.

More details at http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/tirpitz.html
epeon
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:37 pm

Re: Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Post by epeon »

Not even close. The Bismarck was a raider. She would avoid the South Dakota like the plage. But, the South Dakota had bigger guns, more armor. In a straight up fight 16 inch shells finish off Bismarck pretty quickly.
epeon
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:37 pm

Re: Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Post by epeon »

One other point, the South Dakota was often quoted as a "treaty" 35,000 ton battleship. Complete nonsense. She easily display 45,000 tons standard. How could she not with 16" guns and 16" armor? Also, you think the Bismarck stands up to 2700 lbs heavy 16" shells? I think not.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Post by lwd »

epeon wrote:One other point, the South Dakota was often quoted as a "treaty" 35,000 ton battleship. Complete nonsense. She easily display 45,000 tons standard. ....
I think you will find that that was indeed her designed displacement. Since she was an "all or nothing" design it's not just how thick the armor is but how much is covered. Additional equipment was also added so her "standard" displacement as of say 1945 was probably well over 35,000 tons.
JtD
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Post by JtD »

The SD was calculated at 38664 tons standard on October 13th, 1942.

I feel the US policy was to consider 38000ts the upper limit, that is 35000ts plus 3000ts for improvements in AAA, horizontal and underwater protection, so the building phase was the first modernization.

SD wasn't a contemporary of Bismarck and it spend most of it's first half year of service in New York harbour. I don't think there's much to chose between the two, except for the extra 2-3 knots Bismarck had.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Post by lwd »

JtD wrote:...SD wasn't a contemporary of Bismarck
The were in commission at the samg time and SD was clearly operational before Tirptiz. I'd say that makes them contemporary.
.... I don't think there's much to chose between the two, except for the extra 2-3 knots Bismarck had.
They had vastly different armor schemes and armament primary, secondary, and tericary. Not to mention electronic suites. The US BB also has considerably more range (accoring to wiki its 8,525 vs 15,000 at somewhat slower speed for the SD/Alabama) and about 10% smaller crew for the US ship.

So differences in some case major ones in just about every catagory.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Post by Dave Saxton »

Was SD operational with the fleet in Sept 1941?
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
JtD
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Post by JtD »

lwd wrote:
JtD wrote:...SD wasn't a contemporary of Bismarck
The were in commission at the samg time and SD was clearly operational before Tirptiz. I'd say that makes them contemporary.
I think you have the wrong year, SD wasn't ready for action until June 1942, commissioned in March 1942. That's more than a year after Tirpitz and also about a year after Bismarck was sunk.
.... I don't think there's much to chose between the two, except for the extra 2-3 knots Bismarck had.
They had vastly different armor schemes and armament primary, secondary, and tericary. Not to mention electronic suites. The US BB also has considerably more range (accoring to wiki its 8,525 vs 15,000 at somewhat slower speed for the SD/Alabama) and about 10% smaller crew for the US ship.

So differences in some case major ones in just about every catagory.
Bismarck and SD range was similar, except for low speeds where the double reduction gear of the SD turbines made them much more efficient. At higher speed, the still worse efficiency of Bismarcks power plant was about compensated by the larger fuel load.
And yes, they were very different designs, but eventually the overall package adds up to rather similar capabilities.

The difference in the electronic suits is that Bismarcks less powerful electronic suite would brake down when the main guns fired while SD more powerful electronic suite would brake down when the main guns fired. So after the first few salvos SD would have more reserve electric capacity. ;)
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Post by lwd »

Dave Saxton wrote:Was SD operational with the fleet in Sept 1941?
Good call, I got the SoDak and the North Carolina mixed up. Still those classes are pretty close in capability.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Post by lwd »

JtD wrote:...
I think you have the wrong year, SD wasn't ready for action until June 1942, commissioned in March 1942. That's more than a year after Tirpitz and also about a year after Bismarck was sunk.
No wrong ship. But Tirpitz wasn't operational until 42 so while there commissioning dates may be a year apart their operational dates aren't.
....the US BB also has considerably more range (according to wiki its 8,525 vs 15,000 at somewhat slower speed for the SD/Alabama)....
Bismarck and SD range was similar, except for low speeds where the double reduction gear of the SD turbines made them much more efficient. At higher speed, the still worse efficiency of Bismarcks power plant was about compensated by the larger fuel load.
Excuse me are you saying 8.5K ~ 15K?
And yes, they were very different designs, but eventually the overall package adds up to rather similar capabilities.
If that's the case then you are basically saying all the modern BBs (with the possible exception of the twins, the Dunqurks, and the Yamatos) were the same. I guess on some level that is correct but ....
The difference in the electronic suits is that Bismarcks less powerful electronic suite would brake down when the main guns fired while SD more powerful electronic suite would brake down when the main guns fired. So after the first few salvos SD would have more reserve electric capacity. ;)
I'm not so sure about Bismarck but I'm pretty sure that's wrong as far as SoDak was concerned. There was a problem but it was fixed pretty quickly and it wasn't with the eletronic suite it was the electrical power system.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Post by Dave Saxton »

What do you mean by "electronics suite?"
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
JtD
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Post by JtD »

lwd wrote:Excuse me are you saying 8.5K ~ 15K?
No, I'm saying that 6400@25kn is pretty similar to 6640@24kn.
If that's the case then you are basically saying all the modern BBs (with the possible exception of the twins, the Dunqurks, and the Yamatos) were the same. I guess on some level that is correct but ....
Yes and no, in terms of destroying each other yes, in terms of other parameters no (AAA, range). I'd also consider the Iowas another exception.
I'm not so sure about Bismarck but I'm pretty sure that's wrong as far as SoDak was concerned. There was a problem but it was fixed pretty quickly and it wasn't with the eletronic suite it was the electrical power system.
Massachusetts lost all radars after the first few salvos at Casablanca. South Dakota almost offed herself at Guadalcanal. The class had serious problems with electronics and electrics early on.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Post by lwd »

JtD wrote:
lwd wrote:Excuse me are you saying 8.5K ~ 15K?
No, I'm saying that 6400@25kn is pretty similar to 6640@24kn.
The slower speed differential is still considerable and important.
If that's the case then you are basically saying all the modern BBs (with the possible exception of the twins, the Dunqurks, and the Yamatos) were the same. I guess on some level that is correct but ....
Yes and no, in terms of destroying each other yes, in terms of other parameters no (AAA, range). I'd also consider the Iowas another exception.
Why consider Iowas an exception if you are looking at them at that level. The speed difference between Iowa and Bismarck is about the same as between Bismarck and SoDak?
...Massachusetts lost all radars after the first few salvos at Casablanca. South Dakota almost offed herself at Guadalcanal. The class had serious problems with electronics and electrics early on.
The key is early on. Mass got hers back pretty quickly didn't she? And SoDak would have if someone hadn't wired down a ciruit breaker. In any case the problem did not seam to reoccur in either case. I'm not sure if how quickly the problem was resolved in the case of the Bismarcks.
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota

Post by Dave Saxton »

lwd wrote:..... Mass got hers back pretty quickly didn't she? And SoDak would have if someone hadn't wired down a ciruit breaker. In any case the problem did not seam to reoccur in either case. I'm not sure if how quickly the problem was resolved in the case of the Bismarcks.
I'm not sure the Bismarcks ever had electrical failure problems like the SD did?

The SD never got her radars back on line at Guadalcanal after the power was restored. At the end of the battle the undamaged radars were still out of order. Many had been destroyed directly by battle damage too. However, most cavity magnetron based radars require extended restart times, so once power is lost or a repair is put into effect the radar remains unavailable for extended periods, in some cases hours.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
Post Reply