Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?
Paul, I'm sure lessons were learned at Jutland, but don't forget that the post war world of 1919 was very different from 1914 or 1939. War with Germany was not again envisaged until 1938, and at that time the German fleet was not seen as significant.
For the British don't forget that the biggest enemy faced by the Royal Navy in the inter war period were budget cuts - and Britain paid a huge price for that in the first three years of WW2.
For the Germans the main considerations for their fleet in the 1930's was political. Whilst the senior officers of the Reichsmarine/Kreigsmarine may have been aware of the lessons of Jutland, the principal director of their activities -Adolf Hitler - certainly was not.
For the British don't forget that the biggest enemy faced by the Royal Navy in the inter war period were budget cuts - and Britain paid a huge price for that in the first three years of WW2.
For the Germans the main considerations for their fleet in the 1930's was political. Whilst the senior officers of the Reichsmarine/Kreigsmarine may have been aware of the lessons of Jutland, the principal director of their activities -Adolf Hitler - certainly was not.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?
The Bismarck Vs. Rodney one on one if the Bismarck was able to steer the Rodney would be destroyed and sunk hands down; end of story. The rodney was part of a gang up force that the british directed at Bismarck after Bismarck was unable to steer and turned back at the oncoming enemy. With no rudder damage the Bismarck woul Pummel the hapless rodney; end of story!!
Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?
In the condition Rodney was in when she fought Bismarck, I would have to agree that a fully worked up Bismarck with no damage would win. Rodney was in poor condition, her top speed had dropped 3 knots because she needed repairs and she had a scratch crew that had been assembled to take her to be refitted in the US. On the other hand, if Rodney is also in good condition, then you have the makings of an epic fight. Rodney can certainly deal out more punishment than Bismarck, just look at the one shell that took out both Bismarck's front turrets and no part of Bismarck's armour offers any protection against Rodney's shells, excepting the scarp triangle that covers the lower part of Bismarck's belt and which would provide protection at close range for the engine room and magazines. Rodney has better deck armour than Bismarck, and the belt armour is both thicker and sloped inwards at the base to increase the amount of armour a shell has to penetrate. Rodney does have a shallow armour belt, but it provides enough protection that you cannot consider Bismarck to be better protected. So Rodney is better protected and can deal out more punishment than Bismarck, this certainly isn't a one-sided fight in Bismarck favour. The advantages that Bismarck holds are a greater speed to escape if damaged and faster firing guns, due to the later I would call this a fair fight.dahlhorse wrote:The Bismarck Vs. Rodney one on one if the Bismarck was able to steer the Rodney would be destroyed and sunk hands down; end of story. The rodney was part of a gang up force that the british directed at Bismarck after Bismarck was unable to steer and turned back at the oncoming enemy. With no rudder damage the Bismarck woul Pummel the hapless rodney; end of story!!
- Karl Heidenreich
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4808
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
- Location: San José, Costa Rica
Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?
My opinion about this revisited thread...
Rodney`s 16 inchers were the ones that broke Bismarck`s armoured bridge and penetrated the main belt, which say a lot. This is not, I agree, a one sided fight. I`m begining to believe that in WW2 technology and manufacturing were not enough to have insurance of victory in naval combat, a lot depends in the tactical skill and will as in the strategic context in which the combat takes place.
When reading Parshall and Tully`s work about Midway I`m more convinced about this. Maybe an incredible tactical skill could be useless when one side is unable to use it because certain strategic (or doctrinal) limitations are considered. So a very powerful vessel (such as Musashi at Leyte) is of no use, even if it has everything in favor for a tactical confrontation against an equal.
Well, here we found such a paradox: I believe that Bismarck in a one vs. one fight against Rodney had enough on her side for winning. But I doubt that the circumstances would favor Bismarck in such an encounter. Rodney`s characteristics are those of a dangerous armored turtle with 16". But it`s a slow ship and had a shallow main belt. There are accounts of problems of stability over her longitudinal axis (which favors a hit below that main belt) and concussion effects from the blast of it`s main guns which could eventually interfere with her own precision. Also we have the fact that during the final battle (or should we say "execution" of Bismarck) both, KGV and Rodney lasted a lot in hitting the enemy. But we know, for a fact, that Bismarck`s artillery in good conditions could find a faster target than Rodney in half the time which put the German BB in a good position. That and speed that would favor Bismarck in making itself hard to hit whilst the Rodney cannot be as fast and manouverable.
Yes, I believe that Bismarck had a slight edge over the aging floating castle Rodney but... if that castle could hit first then the story would be for certain very complicated.
Of course, a Bismarck with Lutjens as commander had less chances of winning. A Bismarck under Lindemann alone had a lot more chances.
Just some thoughts...
Rodney`s 16 inchers were the ones that broke Bismarck`s armoured bridge and penetrated the main belt, which say a lot. This is not, I agree, a one sided fight. I`m begining to believe that in WW2 technology and manufacturing were not enough to have insurance of victory in naval combat, a lot depends in the tactical skill and will as in the strategic context in which the combat takes place.
When reading Parshall and Tully`s work about Midway I`m more convinced about this. Maybe an incredible tactical skill could be useless when one side is unable to use it because certain strategic (or doctrinal) limitations are considered. So a very powerful vessel (such as Musashi at Leyte) is of no use, even if it has everything in favor for a tactical confrontation against an equal.
Well, here we found such a paradox: I believe that Bismarck in a one vs. one fight against Rodney had enough on her side for winning. But I doubt that the circumstances would favor Bismarck in such an encounter. Rodney`s characteristics are those of a dangerous armored turtle with 16". But it`s a slow ship and had a shallow main belt. There are accounts of problems of stability over her longitudinal axis (which favors a hit below that main belt) and concussion effects from the blast of it`s main guns which could eventually interfere with her own precision. Also we have the fact that during the final battle (or should we say "execution" of Bismarck) both, KGV and Rodney lasted a lot in hitting the enemy. But we know, for a fact, that Bismarck`s artillery in good conditions could find a faster target than Rodney in half the time which put the German BB in a good position. That and speed that would favor Bismarck in making itself hard to hit whilst the Rodney cannot be as fast and manouverable.
Yes, I believe that Bismarck had a slight edge over the aging floating castle Rodney but... if that castle could hit first then the story would be for certain very complicated.
Of course, a Bismarck with Lutjens as commander had less chances of winning. A Bismarck under Lindemann alone had a lot more chances.
Just some thoughts...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
- Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?
How could Bismarck have no effective protection vs Rodney's guns, with the exception of the scarp triangle, if it's designed IZ vs it's own 15" was 20km to 30km, and it's own 15" had greater penetrating power than the Rodney 16"? Didn't the hit to the forward battery and other hits occur inside of 20km?
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.
Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?
Using Navweaps for armour penetration, Rodney can penetrate Bismarck's belt out to 23,000m, and Bismarck's deck from 26,000m outwards, so you have an IZ of 3,000m. The barbettes and conning tower can be penetrated out to 20,000m. The turret face is 16.9in and should so be proof beyond 12,000m but because of the sharp angle of the slope it can be penetrated from a considerably greater distance, and the roof is vulnerable beyond 20,000m. I haven't used the fact that German face hardened armour, like American face hardened armour, is too brittle and thus performs worse than the British armour used for the data on Rodneys guns. According to Nathan Okun, due to this brittleness of armour Bismarck does not have an IZ to her own guns, apart from the close range protection from the scarp triangle. As for Bismarck's designed IZ, she does not in any way live up to this.
- Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?
British tests of Tirpitz armour showed the German KC to perform within 1 or 2 percentage points of the British KC, and the Wh required about 10% more energy than the same thickness of British homgenous armour, for the British 15" APC to penetrate, at the same striking angle.
It wasn't intended that the protection should be effective inside of 20km against large caliber shells. Futhermore, the belt was designed to work in combination with either the slopes or the flat portion of the panzer deck at all ranges, so that's a non -issue.
Doing the math using GKdos100 data, the heavy artillery turrets do have protection (but just barely) against intact penetration of 15" shells, between roughly 20km-30km, even with the 14.2" radiused face plate.
It wasn't intended that the protection should be effective inside of 20km against large caliber shells. Futhermore, the belt was designed to work in combination with either the slopes or the flat portion of the panzer deck at all ranges, so that's a non -issue.
Doing the math using GKdos100 data, the heavy artillery turrets do have protection (but just barely) against intact penetration of 15" shells, between roughly 20km-30km, even with the 14.2" radiused face plate.
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.
Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?
According to Nathan Okun's article on battleships armour schemes, the Bismarck would have gained an extra 3,000m of belt IZ by using British armour instead of German armour.Dave Saxton wrote:British tests of Tirpitz armour showed the German KC to perform within 1 or 2 percentage points of the British KC, and the Wh required about 10% more energy than the same thickness of British homgenous armour, for the British 15" APC to penetrate, at the same striking angle.
There is a sizable gap between the top of the scarp and the armour deck, this is the region of vulnerability.Dave Saxton wrote: It wasn't intended that the protection should be effective inside of 20km against large caliber shells. Futhermore, the belt was designed to work in combination with either the slopes or the flat portion of the panzer deck at all ranges, so that's a non -issue.
Is that the British 15" or the German 15"? Regardless of which gun fired it, if a 15in shell penetrates in any way the crew of the turret will die and the turret will be out of action.Dave Saxton wrote: Doing the math using GKdos100 data, the heavy artillery turrets do have protection (but just barely) against intact penetration of 15" shells, between roughly 20km-30km, even with the 14.2" radiused face plate.
- Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?
The results of the British tests indicate that the German Kc armour was not sub standard, and the British replaced their own NCA with a new homogenous armour that was essentially the same as the German Wotan post war. The German homogenous armour worked into the ships was a new chrome/moly type of homogenous armour.David89 wrote: According to Nathan Okun's article on battleships armour schemes, the Bismarck would have gained an extra 3,000m of belt IZ by using British armour instead of German armour.
I'm going to place more faith on the documented evidence, and the writings of the expert people actually involved with the designed IZ calculations as well.
David89 wrote:There is a sizable gap between the top of the scarp and the armour deck, this is the region of vulnerability.
There is not any gap between the top of the scarps and the panzer deck, as any accurate cross sectional drawing will show. Any shell that penetrates high up on the main belt, or over the main belt, will still need to defeat the flat portions of the panzer deck, and the angles in such cases are most unfavorable.
That's for the German 15". The face plate thickness of 14.2" doesn't compare poorly with contemporary British practice. It's within 2" compared to Rodney's. I have 12.75" for KGV and 13" for Vanguard. The problem of protecting turrets was in most cases an intractable problem, as even a non-penetrating hit could be effective in many cases, and it's impractical and ineffcient to attemp to mount armour that can provide protection at shorter ranges, in this case inside of 20km.
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.
Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?
Wasn't that a deck hit though?Dave Saxton wrote:...? Didn't the hit to the forward battery and other hits occur inside of 20km?
Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?
Whilst taking in the above discussion, I still think the key to this confrontation is over which ship lands the first devasting hit, and of how boldy the Bismarck is commanded.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
- Dave Saxton
- Supporter
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Rocky Mountains USA
Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?
Nobody knows for sure. A turret hit is more commonlly proposed. As I recall there isn't any indication of the presumed deck hit on the wreck.lwd wrote:Wasn't that a deck hit though?Dave Saxton wrote:...? Didn't the hit to the forward battery and other hits occur inside of 20km?
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.
Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?
I thought I read that spotters on Rodney saw a hit between the two turrets. I think it was posted on this board.
Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?
There was a hit on Bruno turret which resulted in the back being blown out of the gun house. A survivor verified that it was missing and he could see inside it.