ORIGINAL: Dili
So if the hole was different in Taranto all was well and good? Well what you say is truth but within limits. If not, you can never reach any conclusion because an hit in same place can have very different results precluding any conclusion.
Results can be different per result which is why it is unwise to make black and white statements about a ship class being flawed based on one incident which is what i've been saying all along.
I didnt read "online" i presented the source and you invent that i have read online. So i am supposed to ignore that the "sirvizio de sicurezza a bordo" was "tutto restudiato" and "strutura stagne" verified because "Comandi e Direzione technica" was alarmed that water reached places adjacent from those hit. And that subsequently the problem as never repeated?
Online or book read, the question remains the same. Do you simply parrot whatever source you can find and don't think for yourself? If your trying to tell me that the Italian HC report blamed the crew entirely for the damage at Taranto, then I can certainly choose to disagree based on examining other source material. As for the problem never repeating, if by that you mean large scale flooding, such a thing did occur again.
Yes, but what made it a problem was the most front one. Neither you account for the fact that wasnt even attempted to counter flooding.
Because the ship grounded naturally. Had the ship been out to sea, especially in conditions present for KM Bismarck, there certainly would have been counterflooding which would have hopefully negated the bow submerging completely but would also have reduced freeboard overall making escape more difficult. I believe i mentioned that.
It was implicit but you are right i should have answered. I think a good ship(includes Littorio but not the Bismarck) is able to maneuver in sea state that i saw in pictures Bismarck was on when hit. Littorio certainly because it has also the auxiliary rudders. Of course with degraded performance.
Ok...at least you finally answered the question. I still disagree. Maneuvering on props only for example in such a sea state and with damage as Bismarck already had would be difficult for any other ship class as well. A key aspect of the question was also; "would it be able to maneuver enough to escape?"
You made the implication that 2 auxiliary rudders plus one main rudder were worse than a ship with two rudders like Bismarck maneuverality wise without any evidence to support it.
Its not an implication. Statement of fact via Garzke and to be precise, the statement was, a traditional two rudder system provides greater maneuverability, all things being equal vs a single rudder with an aux rudder system. The Italians were willing to accept this trade off because they wanted better redundancy of systems. You said you felt that Bismarck was "Flawed" because the Germans should have "known better" so why did they do it. It appears they did it for the same reason other nations did.
I posted the area the Littorio rudders had, you should came up with area of Bismarck rudders to establish your point.
For your information the cumulative rudder area of Bismarck was 48,4m2 and of Littorio 70m2.
The reference to a critic of rudders size came Boyne, Walter J., Clash of Titans: World War II at Sea (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1995), 55. per Wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismarck_class_battleship see point 14-15.
The actual question was, how did Bismarck's primary rudders compare in size to those of other BB's such as KGV and North Carolina's main rudders. Thank you for the reference. Wikipedia.....great. I note that the article claims Bismarck's rudders made her not maneuverable enoughl based solely on the fact that she was hit in the rudders by a single torpedo during the Pursuit! That to me is hardly convincing proof. One could make the same criticism of Prince of Wales, or when the Veneto was stopped dead in the water by a single torp hit. I'll go with my book sources on this and none support this assertation.
That is not what i am saying, which is maneuverality and capability to change course. Stability was a strong asset of Bismarck, some even say too much because precisely of implications for maneuverality.
If for the sake of argument, Bismarck could be considered less maneuverable than some then as with the other elements discussed it is not due to "design FLAW" but rather more to priority on what the designers felt was more important. A steady, stable warship able to shoot accurately and absorb serious punishment are no less vital factors than overall maneuverability.
But my main problem is that the whole propeller/rudder was so closely placed.
Thats fine. My point is that despite this close proximity, which was not all that different from other classes (KGV for example) , it is neither a gurantee that a hit will disable all the systems (which did not occur in Bismarck's case) nor will a more dispersed arrangement gurantee that it won't. If Bismarck's steering arrangements were less than optimal, and this is still being debated to this day, it was not a major source of weakness since essentially all warships are vulnerable to stern hits. Hence I do not agree with the opinion that Bismarck was a "Flawed" ship. She was not most powerful battleship built but she was a good fighting ship.
[/quote]
