Bismarck construction flaws

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

spicmart
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by spicmart » Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:32 pm

Yes. Confusion on my part. Thanks.

[/quote]

There may be some confusion here from the DS battle, where one of the three hits by POW did penetrate a boiler room, where five stokers suffered serious scald wounds.
[/quote]

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by Paul L » Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:07 pm

RF wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:22 pm
spicmart wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:01 pm
And did Bismarck suffer a hit in her boiler room during her final fight? Some claim so. Her vitals were supposed to be immune against such hits at these ranges.
There may be some confusion here from the DS battle, where one of the three hits by POW did penetrate a boiler room, where five stokers suffered serious scald wounds.
A 14" shell penetration of boiler room only resulted in 5 stokers with serious scald wounds? That does not sound like a complete penetration. Maybe more like a "partial penetration" that could have severed a high pressure line with shrapnel?

Any word on substantive damage to equipment?
"Eine mal is kein mal"

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 682
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by Thorsten Wahl » Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:02 pm

spicmart wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:32 pm

There may be some confusion here from the DS battle, where one of the three hits by POW did penetrate a boiler room, where five stokers suffered serious scald wounds.
The shell dived under the belt approximately in this way and detonated in the proximity of the torpedobulkhead

-blue -E-werk out of order immediatlely completely flooded

-green - boilerrom some damage by splinters through transversal bulkhead between E werk and boilerroom;
no or only slight(repairable within few minutes or hours) damage
likely shock damage to the transversal bulkhead;
water entry from E-Werk could be held for a day until a torpedodetonation caused additional shock damage
reduced steam production then caused maximum speed reduced to about 28 knots

-orange -15-cm-shell rooms undamaged

Image
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by Dave Saxton » Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:01 pm

Thorsten Wahl wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:02 pm
spicmart wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:32 pm

There may be some confusion here from the DS battle, where one of the three hits by POW did penetrate a boiler room, where five stokers suffered serious scald wounds.
The shell dived under the belt approximately in this way and detonated in the proximity of the torpedobulkhead

-blue -E-werk out of order immediatlely completely flooded

-green - boilerrom some damage by splinters through transversal bulkhead between E werk and boilerroom;
no or only slight(repairable within few minutes or hours) damage
likely shock damage to the transversal bulkhead;
water entry from E-Werk could be held for a day until a torpedodetonation caused additional shock damage
reduced steam production then caused maximum speed reduced to about 28 knots

-orange -15-cm-shell rooms undamaged

Image
The angle of fall in the diagram is ~19* which corresponds to a range of ~20,100 meters battle range at the time of the hit. Of course, once a shell hits the water the path may alter. Some accounts mention some of the double bottom compartments were ripped up by this hit.
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.

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by Bill Jurens » Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:08 pm

At the risk of being picky, I might point out that the interpretation of the angle of fall in the previous diagram as about 19 degrees is incorrect, and represents an error very commonly made. When one is looking at transverse cross sections (I assume that it is indeed part of a transverse cross section which is shown) the angle of fall is only correct if the trajectory is travelling directly across the beam, i.e. perpendicular to the longitudinal centerline. Projectiles approaching from other angles, due to foreshortening effects, always project a greater-than-real angle of fall on a transverse projection.

In this case, the angle of fall indeed appears to be about 19 degrees, but the projectile is shown in plan (why are the views not aligned?) as approaching from 40 degrees forward of the bow. A bit of mathematical (or geometric) manipulation, which I will not go into in great detail here, indicates that according to the diagrams the actual angle of fall is only a little greater than 15 degrees. Whether or not one considers that sort of error significant or not depends, I suppose on the situation. In this case, the other issues involved, e.g. the probably somewhat erratic nature of the underwater portion of the trajectory, and the fair uncertainty regarding the exact point of explosion, etc., may submerge this sort of nuance in the noise.

As I mentioned before, this sort of thing represents a very commonly encountered error in damage analysis, and I point it out here only to illustrate the principle.

Watch your geometry!

Bill Jurens

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3638
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by dunmunro » Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:11 pm

Paul L wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:07 pm
RF wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:22 pm
spicmart wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:01 pm
And did Bismarck suffer a hit in her boiler room during her final fight? Some claim so. Her vitals were supposed to be immune against such hits at these ranges.
There may be some confusion here from the DS battle, where one of the three hits by POW did penetrate a boiler room, where five stokers suffered serious scald wounds.
A 14" shell penetration of boiler room only resulted in 5 stokers with serious scald wounds? That does not sound like a complete penetration. Maybe more like a "partial penetration" that could have severed a high pressure line with shrapnel?

Any word on substantive damage to equipment?
It was actually a turbo-generator room that was penetrated and shock and splinters damaged the next inboard bulkhead to an auxiliary boiler room and an adjacent bulkhead to a main boiler room.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by Dave Saxton » Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:36 pm

Thank you Mr. Jurens. I stand corrected.
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.

Paul L
Senior Member
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:04 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by Paul L » Sat Oct 27, 2018 11:34 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:11 pm

It was actually a turbo-generator room that was penetrated and shock and splinters damaged the next inboard bulkhead to an auxiliary boiler room and an adjacent bulkhead to a main boiler room.
It only works with the shell traveling under the main belt that was not deep enough....which I've argued was a big problem.
"Eine mal is kein mal"

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 682
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by Thorsten Wahl » Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:14 pm

Bill Jurens wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:08 pm

In this case, the angle of fall indeed appears to be about 19 degrees, but the projectile is shown in plan (why are the views not aligned?) as approaching from 40 degrees forward of the bow. A bit of mathematical (or geometric) manipulation, which I will not go into in great detail here, indicates that according to the diagrams the actual angle of fall is only a little greater than 15 degrees. Whether or not one considers that sort of error significant or not depends, I suppose on the situation. In this case, the other issues involved, e.g. the probably somewhat erratic nature of the underwater portion of the trajectory, and the fair uncertainty regarding the exact point of explosion, etc., may submerge this sort of nuance in the noise.

Watch your geometry!

Bill Jurens
the first picture doesnt show the path of the projectile along the trajectory but the projection of the trajectory as seen from a position behind the ship. I made a rough correction of angle of descent of projectile for correcting the line of sight in my estimate.

I used a straight line as estimate, as I could not reliable produce a "real" underwater trajectory, given the uncertainty of the surface of water( entry angle on water, lenght of UW travel...), influence of spin of projectile and development of cavitation on waterentry, velocity loss during traveling in the water - to name some of the uncertainties.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

spicmart
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by spicmart » Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:11 pm

One major flaw of the Bismarck design were the exposed communication system as is often claimed. But they were beneath the armored deck. So why was it so "easy" to disable them? I wonder if other BBs better would have fared better at that.

lightyear
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:07 am

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by lightyear » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:41 pm

Hi there everyone :D
Brand new guy here. I have read threads in this forum for 100+ hours and I feel information pouring into my head. So I registered and start my 1st post here.
I always wonder the slop portion of bismarck's turrets is weard. Is it too light for 180mm at such an important place? It shouldn't be much trouble to give them extra, like, 50mm to make it safer. :think: So I consider this is a flaw in defence system. At a closer range the projectile maybe glance off while at a longer range the strike angle may not be that favourable. If the designer think BS' conterpart also use flat trajectory gun, maybe we can roughly calculate the distance taht her designer intend to let her engage enemies. Just by calculating at what angles the 180mm work well against Bismarck's gun trajectory. It may greatly different with the German navy's doctorine though, as I know BS is capable of engage foes at a fairly long range with his excellent gun dispersion.
Second, I think the underwater protection is a flaw. I know it is tricky for every warship and a dilemma between torpedo protection and underwater projectile protection. Still, I think it will be much better to have 3-3.5 meters(even tappered) under water to make it safer.

Post Reply