Models of Naval Combat

[hawker]

You must be joking or you wish to commit suicide[:D].

[steveh11Matrix]

Well, I agree with Hawker **in this case** because Bismarck's speed allows her to run. She'd need to, in order to avoid damage which would have certainly been a mission-kill, and probably an eventual actual kill. Basically, the RN had more ships...

Steve.

[hawker]

I found this on other forum.
Fact is the Bismarck was a revolution in battleship design, his beam was relatively wider in proportion to his length. This characteristic ran counter to the prevalent desire for more speed, which called for the least beam possible in relation to length. However, the Bismarck's wide beam seemed to work in his overall advantage, because it lessened any tendency to roll in in heavy seas and, thus, increased his ability as a gun platform. It also reduced his draft, which could be important in the shallow waters of the North Sea.
Furthermore, it allowed a more efficient use of space, better placement of armour, a greater distance between the armoured outer shell and the inner torpedo bulkheads, which protected the Bismarck against underwater explosions, and simplified the arrangement of the twin turrets of the secondary battery and the heavy antiaircraft guns.
More than 90% of the Bismarck's steel hull was welded. As added protection against an underwater hit, her double bottom extended over 80% of her length. Her upper deck ran from bow to stern, and beneath it were the battery deck, the lower armored deck and the upper and middle platform decks.
Armour comprised the highest % of the ship's total weight, over 40%, and qualitatively it was mounted in proportion to the importance of the position to be protected.
The Bismarck was no myth, only legend. Other battleships, Yamoto and Missouri may have been bigger or have had more advanced weaponery, but they were not the Bismarck. No one talks about the Yamoto or the Missouri, unless there watching a Steven Segal movie, ie the Missouri.
I would stack the Bismarck up against any battleship, anywhere any time.

[Berkut]

There is no arguing with unapologetic hero worship, so why bother?

[mdiehl]

Bismarck can with ease put a shell in Rodney machinery because of bad underwater protection against shells.

No, not really.

This meant that the Nelsons could only bring all turrets to bear broadside or as near as.

That is basically true of Bismarck as well. Two forward two aft. Full bearing on target only in broadside. A confrontation between the two would basically look like a race track with Bismarck circling he perimeter and Rodney the inside lane. Bismarck's speed advantage is nullified because she has to traverse a larger perimiter. To make the speed work for her she has to close the range. To do that she has to put her bow to Rodney's broadside. Sayonara Bismarck.

Both slugging it out with equal likelihoods of hitting. But when Rodney hits, every shell penetrates, and every penetrating hit does more damage than a Bismarck hit.

South Dakota class is much better to confront Bismarck,but again its slower and Bismarck could penetrate SA armor just lke SA could penetrate Bismarck armor.

3 knots won't save Bismarck from SoDaks 16 shells. Every SoDak shot penetrates every armored space on Bismarck except the conning tower. No Bismarck shot penetrates a SoDak turret roof or turret face until Bismarck closes the range to about 8000 yards. At that range SoDak will not miss and every SoDak hit will do far more damage than a Bismarck hit because SoDaks shells are substantially bigger. At 8000 yards the secondaries become interesting. Bismarck's 6" are nice, but there aren't enough of them (IMO) and SoDak's secondary directors are far superior.

Richelieu has problems with salvo spreading.

True, but she's a MUCH tougher ship and has better guns. Arguably the best underwater protection of any of them and flotation filled voids between the hull plates.

Dont forget that in last battle Bismarck gunners must fight against superior power and fatigue,these man are,before last battle occur spend 24 hours by the guns. Brittish also score lucky hit in last battle,in Bismarck one of stereoscopic range finders and since than every turret on Bismarck fires separately.

Whatever. Like I said before, if you mine the data for one offs that seem to support your position then you can "substantiate" almost any bizarre notion that you want.

I think 90% people will stick to Bismarck and Tirpitz because they will blow Nelsons

You'll only find those 90% among people who have no idea whereof they speak, or devoted third reich lost causers.

[mdiehl]

because Bismarck's speed allows her to run

Yes. And that is about all that Bismarck's superior speed would have been useful for in a 1 on 1 or 2 on 2 ship engagement.

[Big B]

This topic has gotten way too queit so I thought I'd get some gasoline out...anyway, where was I..oh yes!

I think they would have been a great little fleet because of their speed.
I think the Bismarcks and Scharnhorsts(re-armed) would have been powerful enough to fight an equal number of British ships - if they had to - and I'm not saying they would destroy the British, I'm just saying they would be a match for them 1 for 1. But the whole point would have been that their speed should have helped them avoid the heavy units of the RN, allowing them to run rather than fight - and carrying on commerce raiding.

As I recall the RN started escorting important convoys with BBs in the early part of the war...with a force like this a single BB couldn't handle the 4 big German ships, but if the British formed BB TFs to match them - they wouldn't have the speed to catch them...interesting dilemma. I suppose the RN CVs would have been the answer in finding the Germans and slowing them down - not unlike what Happened to Bismarck...

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The Bismarcks and Scharnhorsts would have made a tremendously powerful raiding fleet/mini battlefleet, and would have given the Admiralty no end of headaches if they had been properly used

I'm not so sure. I think the notion of a German battlefleet to confront the RN just won't fly. Even if you brigaded Scharn, Gneis, Bmck, and say Trptz, you'd just make them easier to find. That means more likely a head to head with the Royal Navy home fleet assembled. The Germans would just be horrendously outgunned. In the end Bismarck was a status symbol first, a raider second, and a line of battle dreadnaught least of all.

I think the best German surface ships ton for ton were the "pocket BBs." Since Germany could only really be very good at raiding, they were the best optimized for the job. Well, them and certain auxiliary cruisers like Kormoran.

I think Scharn and Gneis would have been better armed with 2xtwin 15"s and some sort of medium caliber mount. 8" or 6" for doing the raiding part of raiding. Save the heavies for fending of UK CBs.

[mdiehl]

But the whole point would have been that their speed should have helped them avoid the heavy units of the RN, allowing them to run rather than fight - and carrying on commerce raiding.

Yes I agree completely.

Hawker: I would stack the Bismarck up against any battleship, anywhere any time.

And you'd lose most of the time. After 1942, you'd lose *every* time.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Well,those guns sent HMS "Hood" to the bottom in six minutes and set POW on the run. BTW,HMS "Hood" is not tin can as someone may say.

Ah, but at that range Hood was indeed a "tin can." And while hitting early does reflect well on Prinz Eugen's or Bismarck's gunners (I've heard it said that critical analysis suggests it was Prinz that started the fire that did for Hood), one has to bear in mind that the Hood was closing the range, not salvo chasing, and providing a low deflection shot. The circumstances represent the easiest ones for hitting an enemy ship at long range.

Yeah, I remember that. Nathan Okun was interested in modeling the effect of multiple armored decks, and I suggested he handle it like light refraction. That seemed to work (although I don't know what he uses now), and he tried it with the Prinz Eugen's 8" rifles at long range. Lo and behold, each deck that the AP shell penetrated turned it a bit more to the vertical--enough that it could penetrate the next deck, eventually allowing it to reach the magazines. And that produced his observation that the Prinz Eugen 'could' have sunk the Hood.

Bismarck's main armament was adequate for her job... running the Royal Navy gauntlet and engaging in hit and run confrontations. Against a heavily armored and armed vessel like Richelieu, North Carolina, or Rodney, Bismarck would likely have lost. Circumstances in her initial sortie put her against the two least capable heavy ships in the Royal Navy... one underarmored and adequately gunned, the other adequately armored but effectively undergunned giving the bugs in her turret and elevation trunions.

I don't think Bismarck's AAA was up to the standards of the day. Of course the only BBs that were up to the standards of the day were the US ones with the paired 5"38s.

These comparisons however are a bit like the "Balao vs Type IX" comparisons. The missions were different. The designs were optimized around the missions. Bismarck was in the end just a big raider. Not really up to line of battle work (because of her inadequate caliber guns). She got lucky against Hood and because of that lived ten days longer than one might otherwise have expected.

Just so.

[hawker]

And you'd lose most of the time. After 1942, you'd lose *every* time.

That is completely BS,take a look at weight of armor tabel:

Bismarck- 17,540 mt
KGV class-12,612 mt
Rodney-14,250 mt
Richelieau-16,400 mt
North Carolina-15,087 mt

Clear winer is Bismarck.
Bismarck has heavier armor than North Carolina and Richeliau,and you tell me that they beat her,BS i say.
BISMARCK IS BETTER THAN ANY SHIP OF HER TIME INCLUDING ALL BRITTISH AND US.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Big B

Be that as it may, I think the 15" gun was still a practical and effective BB gun in WWII - even though the standard for a BB gun had been upped to 16" by the world's major navies as far back as the 1920s.

As you pointed out each country built for their own needs. This is one of the cases where I think Hitler was right in demanding that Scharnhorst and Gneisenau be armed with 3 twin 15" guns as well.
The Bismarcks and Scharnhorsts would have made a tremendously powerful raiding fleet/mini battlefleet, and would have given the Admiralty no end of headaches if they had been properly used.

B

They did... Actually, the Scharnhorst had about 25% more firepower with the 11" triples than it would have had with 15" doubles. It just didn't have the armor penetration.

[hawker]

FOR BISMARCK GUNS:

Main Battery.

Eight 38 cm guns comprised Bismarck's main battery. The principal purpose of these guns was to destroy surface targets at sea, although they could also be used for shore bombardment and, exceptionally, against aircraft. Designed in 1934, the 38 cm SK C/34 were the most powerful guns ever mounted on a German warship. These were housed in four armoured twin turrets alphabetically arranged from forward to stern. Thus, turrets "Anton" and "Bruno" were located forward, while turrets "C�sar" and "Dora" were aft. Each turret weighed 1,056 metric tons, and was supported on a roller track platform. Below there were a series of levels that extended from the upper deck down to the bottom of the ship. The turrets were especially big compared with 38 cm twin turrets of other foreign warships, and the barrels were very separated from each other, therefore reducing interferences between them. Each gun barrel could fire and be elevated independently of the other. A special characteristic of these guns was their high muzzle velocity and low shell trajectories with a short flight time, which permitted to obtain a very accurate and rapid fire. This was fully demonstrated in the morning of 24 May 1941 during the naval engagement with the British battlecruiser Hood.

[hawker]

They are no slow firing Herwin,take a look above

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The Bismarcks and Scharnhorsts would have made a tremendously powerful raiding fleet/mini battlefleet, and would have given the Admiralty no end of headaches if they had been properly used

I'm not so sure. I think the notion of a German battlefleet to confront the RN just won't fly. Even if you brigaded Scharn, Gneis, Bmck, and say Trptz, you'd just make them easier to find. That means more likely a head to head with the Royal Navy home fleet assembled. The Germans would just be horrendously outgunned. In the end Bismarck was a status symbol first, a raider second, and a line of battle dreadnaught least of all.

I think the best German surface ships ton for ton were the "pocket BBs." Since Germany could only really be very good at raiding, they were the best optimized for the job. Well, them and certain auxiliary cruisers like Kormoran.

I think Scharn and Gneis would have been better armed with 2xtwin 15"s and some sort of medium caliber mount. 8" or 6" for doing the raiding part of raiding. Save the heavies for fending of UK CBs.

The pocket BBs were too slow to run from a treaty cruiser and had about the same firepower, so when cornered by two (or three CLs) they were toast.

[DeepSix]

Look, no one here is saying that you can't love Bismarck. Personally, my favorite ship of the whole war is North Carolina, because it's where I'm from (nevermind that she was built in... New York, I think), because it represents an technological advancement in BB design, and because it has a distinguished service record. It has its place within the context of the war, and if I could I'd have a huge stuffed pillow version of it to prop myself up with when I read in bed. But I don't go about trying to convince everybody it was the perfect ship in every way. For that matter, I don't go about playing down the importance of the aircraft carrier and playing up the virtues of the battleship (and there are many).

If you want to be a Bismarck fanboy, fine, that's what makes this place fun. But what many reasonable posters are simply trying to point out is that the ship didn't exist in a vacuum unaffected by circumstances of technology, politics, military doctrine, industrial capacity, and plain ol' coincidence.

My two salvos worth.[:)]

[hawker]

Look, no one here is saying that you can't love Bismarck. Personally, my favorite ship of the whole war is North Carolina, because it's where I'm from (nevermind that she was built in... New York, I think), because it represents an technological advancement in BB design, and because it has a distinguished service record. It has its place within the context of the war, and if I could I'd have a huge stuffed pillow version of it to prop myself up with when I read in bed. But I don't go about trying to convince everybody it was the perfect ship in every way. For that matter, I don't go about playing down the importance of the aircraft carrier and playing up the virtues of the battleship (and there are many).

If you want to be a Bismarck fanboy, fine, that's what makes this place fun. But what many reasonable posters are simply trying to point out is that the ship didn't exist in a vacuum unaffected by circumstances of technology, politics, military doctrine, industrial capacity, and plain ol' coincidence.

My two salvos worth.

At last,someone without bad arguments[&o]

[hawker]

I have this nice picture,

[mdiehl]

That is completely BS

You are incorrect, because...

take a look at weight of armor tabel:

Placement, thickness, and layout matter as much or more than total weight. I deliberately picked North Carolina because she was the weakest US post WW1 BB that Bismarck could have encountered. She still stands up to Bismarck's 15" guns better than Bismarck stands up to North Carolina's 16" guns.

The interesting thing is that Nate Okuns late war analysis even gives the KGVs the edge over Bismarck, although because the KGVs only used 14" they're still a fair match for each other.

Bismarck has heavier armor than North Carolina and Richeliau,and you tell me that they beat her,BS i say.

Summarized in simple words so that you can asimilate them easily, Bismarck's problem with North Carolina is this: There is no range at which North Carolina's 16" cannot penetrate Bismarck with a substantially intact shell (full order detonation). Bismarck has a problem with North Carolina at ranges between 18,000 and 25,000 yards. It gets worse for Bismarck if she faces South Dakota, and worse again if she faces Iowa. It's pretty horrible all around if Bismarck ever has to face Yamato, because for the entire gun range Bismarck can't penetrate Yamato anywhere. That's the advantage that being a behemoth confers. The only BBs in any navy that could go toe to toe with mighty Yamato were SoDak (if they kept the range long) and Iowa.

BISMARCK IS BETTER THAN ANY SHIP OF HER TIME INCLUDING ALL BRITTISH AND US.

Sorry, that is just factully incorrect, even for 1941. If you allow Bismarck or say Tirpitz to face any UK or US BB in 1944 or Richelieu for that matter the German ship would be rapidly ripped to shreds. Against a KGV the Bismarck can do plenty of damage. Against the Richelieu, SoDak, or Iowa, Bismarck has alot of difficulty penetrating the armor.

There is so much more to this than sheer overall mass of armor that it is amusing to see you dwelling on it. I again refer you to the comparison at combinedfleet.com. Compare the deck armor of Bismarck vs most of her opponents. Look at the turret face and turret top armor. Heck, Bismarck doesn't stand up to SoDak in the armor belt comparison either and "belt protection" is Bismarck's "claim to fame." Against North Carolina the belt protection schemes are much close.

Been my pleasure to burst your bubble though. Thanks for playing.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: hawker

They are no slow firing Herwin,take a look above

I did. BB rate of fire was a function of the loading arrangements in the magazine and turret and whether the guns had to come to a fixed angle for loading, at least according to some material I read thirty years ago. The Bismarck could sustain 2 rpm, which was comparable with other European navies and inferior to American performance in the new battleships (about 2.5 rpm). The Yamato could sustain about 1.5 rpm. The improved US performance reflected a careful redesign during the 1930s. WWI American designs averaged 1.5, starting at 2 rpm early in the engagement and dropping to 1 rpm as shells had to be tarbuckled longer and longer distances.

[hawker]

I did. BB rate of fire was a function of the loading arrangements in the magazine and turret and whether the guns had to come to a fixed angle for loading, at least according to some material I read thirty years ago. The Bismarck could sustain 2 rpm, which was comparable with other European navies and inferior to American performance in the new battleships (about 2.5 rpm). The Yamato could sustain about 1.5 rpm. The improved US performance reflected a careful redesign during the 1930s. WWI American designs averaged 1.5, starting at 2 rpm early in the engagement and dropping to 1 rpm as shells had to be tarbuckled longer and longer distances.

Bismarck fire 3.3 rounds per minute,every 18 seconds-one shot
SOURCE:KBismarck.com - The Battleship Bismarck