Hi SAFN1949,
The Washington Treaty specified something called "Standard Displacement" which was calculated without fuel and without "Reserve feed water" for the boilers. The owning country also specified what the ammunition load was, so often the Standard Displacement was many thousands of tons below the actual displacement of the ship as she left port. The owning navy might specify a load of 75 rounds per main gun while the ship was actually capable of carrying 200 rounds per gun. The US Navy tended to do a lot of that though not with the numbers I mentioned.
From memory, the King George V class was well over 40,000 tons at full load, and she was one of the few classes that were within treaty limitations of 35,000 tons at standard displacement. The Nelson and Rodney were well under the limit. The US Navy North Carolinas and South Dakotas were just a few thousand tons over the limit. The Italian Roma and Bismarck were WAY over the limit with standard displacements in the low 40,000 ton range. I believe that one on one, the KGVs were pretty close to an even match with the Bismarcks at least in offensive power.
I like battleships.
- Ivan.
The Washington Treaty specified something called "Standard Displacement" which was calculated without fuel and without "Reserve feed water" for the boilers. The owning country also specified what the ammunition load was, so often the Standard Displacement was many thousands of tons below the actual displacement of the ship as she left port. The owning navy might specify a load of 75 rounds per main gun while the ship was actually capable of carrying 200 rounds per gun. The US Navy tended to do a lot of that though not with the numbers I mentioned.
From memory, the King George V class was well over 40,000 tons at full load, and she was one of the few classes that were within treaty limitations of 35,000 tons at standard displacement. The Nelson and Rodney were well under the limit. The US Navy North Carolinas and South Dakotas were just a few thousand tons over the limit. The Italian Roma and Bismarck were WAY over the limit with standard displacements in the low 40,000 ton range. I believe that one on one, the KGVs were pretty close to an even match with the Bismarcks at least in offensive power.
I like battleships.
- Ivan.
Oh yeah,
The even gun power of the KGV and Bismarck is on the assumption that the guns on KGV actually worked as advertised. Even unopposed when reducing Bismarck to a wreck, she often could not fire full broadsides because one gun or another had problems. I also wonder if there were serious dispersion problems because of proximity of the gun tubes or perhaps the guns were staggered in firing as in Iowa.
- Ivan.
The even gun power of the KGV and Bismarck is on the assumption that the guns on KGV actually worked as advertised. Even unopposed when reducing Bismarck to a wreck, she often could not fire full broadsides because one gun or another had problems. I also wonder if there were serious dispersion problems because of proximity of the gun tubes or perhaps the guns were staggered in firing as in Iowa.
- Ivan.
The Standard displacement of Bismark is quoted as 41,673 tons and battle load at 50,129. Bismark's rifles were a fairly high velocity weapon, which may have been a good compromise fro North Atlantic conditions. USN practice was for a lower velocity piece with a superheavy shell, which gave better deck penetration at longer ranges. Prince of Wales did penetrate Bismark's armor amidships and more importantly caused loss of bunkerage forward. For a raider, even light damage can prove fatal in the long run. Certainly Prince of Wales and KGV suffered from main battery relibility issues. Mainly as a result of over complicated interlocks to prevent magazine explosions such as destroyed the battle cruisers at Jutland. Kriegsmarine relied on cased charges and IJN better training. The USN somewhere in between.
Cheers: T
Cheers: T
A few other notes on the main armement of Bismark: The 15" Model 1935 Mk 47 gun fired a 1764 lb shell to a max range of 39590 yds. Muzzel velocity was 2952 fps. By comparison the USN 16" shell mounted on the contemporary North Carolina/ SODAK's weigh in at about an additional 1000 lbs! At greater ranges the penetrating power of the heavier shell on deck armor was significant. Because of the greater area of decks as opposed to belt armor, truly sufficent protection from bombs and plunging shellfire became more and more problematic.
As was the issue with SODAK at Guadalcanal, the unprotected uperworks are vulnerable to even much smaller caliber shellfire. The Main fire control director of Bismark was put out of action quite early in the final engagement by an 8" shell fire from one of the cruisers.
As one of the few duels to the death amongst the leviathians, it will always be an interesting engagement.
Then there is the fuel issue....
Cheers: T
As was the issue with SODAK at Guadalcanal, the unprotected uperworks are vulnerable to even much smaller caliber shellfire. The Main fire control director of Bismark was put out of action quite early in the final engagement by an 8" shell fire from one of the cruisers.
As one of the few duels to the death amongst the leviathians, it will always be an interesting engagement.
Then there is the fuel issue....
Cheers: T
HouseHobbit
Charter Member
I gress people will debate this for many years to come, but the bottom line was, the RN was outmatched..
German gunnery was better the Bismarck was a newer better ship..
Bad Luck for the Brits..
In war somtimes the expected, and what really happens, are two different things..
German gunnery was better the Bismarck was a newer better ship..
Bad Luck for the Brits..
In war somtimes the expected, and what really happens, are two different things..
Hi Fliger747,
Your quoted muzzle velocity for Bismarck's guns had me bothered for a while. The actual MV is actually not terribly unusual at 2690 fps. The interesting thing is the rather poor barrel life of this gun. Check out this site for pretty good information on naval weapons:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.htm
From specs, the German gun is pretty mundane other than firing rate. The performance doesn't appear to be any better than the British WW1 era gun. Two aspects are a bit surprising about the German gun:
1. The barrel life was unusually short.
2. The rifling was gain-twist.
Note that the broadside weight of a KGV was heavier than that of the Bismarck by a reasonable margin. (Now that is assuming of course that the goofy interlocks on the British ship would allow full broadsides! ;-)
- Ivan.
Your quoted muzzle velocity for Bismarck's guns had me bothered for a while. The actual MV is actually not terribly unusual at 2690 fps. The interesting thing is the rather poor barrel life of this gun. Check out this site for pretty good information on naval weapons:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.htm
From specs, the German gun is pretty mundane other than firing rate. The performance doesn't appear to be any better than the British WW1 era gun. Two aspects are a bit surprising about the German gun:
1. The barrel life was unusually short.
2. The rifling was gain-twist.
Note that the broadside weight of a KGV was heavier than that of the Bismarck by a reasonable margin. (Now that is assuming of course that the goofy interlocks on the British ship would allow full broadsides! ;-)
- Ivan.
My info on the German armement is from Garzke and Dulin's "Battleships, Axis and Neutral Batleships od WWII". They have a 107 page chapter on Bismark and Tripitz. The short barrel life is directly related to the high velocity. The cased powder did permit a higher theoretical rate of fire and had some advantage in making the system more resistant to powder train explosion. However bagged charges did allow a greater tailoring of the charge to the intended purpose. In USN practice use of partial charges vastly extended barrel life and improved the tajectory for applications such as shore bombardment. It is ironic the only time Tirpitz used her main battery against an enemy target was shore bombardment at Spitzbergen. The barrel life was somewhat similar to the rated of most large Naval Rifles of the era if fired at full charge. Such barrels were lines and a new liner placed inside the structural gun tube, a shipyard operation!
In action against armored ships the sectional density of the shell and the design of the cap and fusing were paramount. Though used as a yardstick, I am not sure that weight of broadside meant as much as the details. An interesting example is the 12" gun used in the Alaska's, which had equal penetrative power to the British 15" gun a in Hood, Warspite etc (addmittedly a WWI weapon). This due to a heavy shell with a lot of weigh for it's frontal area. The size of the bursting charge not being so important as the ability to penetrate, at least in this application.
Bismark and Tirpitz had a modest 30 degree maximum elevation which for the visibility conditions in the North Sea and North Atlantic was considered sufficent for the engagements anticipated. However Bismark found that rolling conditions made a greater potential elevation desireable.
I do not know whether or not Bismark was capable of firing with reduced charges using the cased powder system. This would certainly be useful for a commerce raider.
These ships were designed for very different conditions than say the contemporary USN ships which were largely optimized for Pacific operations.
Cheers: T
In action against armored ships the sectional density of the shell and the design of the cap and fusing were paramount. Though used as a yardstick, I am not sure that weight of broadside meant as much as the details. An interesting example is the 12" gun used in the Alaska's, which had equal penetrative power to the British 15" gun a in Hood, Warspite etc (addmittedly a WWI weapon). This due to a heavy shell with a lot of weigh for it's frontal area. The size of the bursting charge not being so important as the ability to penetrate, at least in this application.
Bismark and Tirpitz had a modest 30 degree maximum elevation which for the visibility conditions in the North Sea and North Atlantic was considered sufficent for the engagements anticipated. However Bismark found that rolling conditions made a greater potential elevation desireable.
I do not know whether or not Bismark was capable of firing with reduced charges using the cased powder system. This would certainly be useful for a commerce raider.
These ships were designed for very different conditions than say the contemporary USN ships which were largely optimized for Pacific operations.
Cheers: T
Above somewhere the use of the Arado float planes was queried. Tirpitz on one of her North Sea sorties was being dogged by a British recon plane (and Tovey somewhere in the area). In big seas and bad weather and without destroyers, she launched both, one to try to chase off the shadower and the other to scout to make sure the way ahead contained no traps. Far too rough to recover on shipboard, so the planes diverted to Bodo, an option not available in the Atlantic!
The Brits had the Hurries mounted on some merchant ship catapults, for a one way trip to chase off or shoot down Condors etc. The pilot guarenteed to get wet at the end of the mission, at best.
Cheers: T
The Brits had the Hurries mounted on some merchant ship catapults, for a one way trip to chase off or shoot down Condors etc. The pilot guarenteed to get wet at the end of the mission, at best.
Cheers: T
R
redriver6
Guest
i could probably go into mission builder and make that happen..
Hi Fliger747,
I actually wrote up a very long-winded reply a couple weeks back to your post regarding Alaska's 12 inch guns but it got lost when there was a hiccup on this site as I was posting. The amount of data lost bothered me enough to stay away from this thread for a while. Hopefully I can remember some of the details:
I believe the ability of the Alaska's 12 inch shells to have equal penetrating power to shells from the Hood's 15 inch guns is mostly due to superior ballistic shape and a bit from superior construction. The Alaska's shells were much more aerodynamic and retained their velocity out much further.
Regarding the Bismarck as a commerce raider, I don't believe she was optimal for the purpose: She had very poor range. I also don't believe that reduced charge for a 15 inch shell would be useful for a commerce raider. Consider that no matter what the powder charge does to increase the life of the gun, the ship only carries around 100 rounds per main gun. I don't believe there ever has been a freighter built that is worthy of a 15 inch shell. The big guns work well for intimidation, but the secondary armament of 5.9 inch guns is quite sufficient for actual use on anything less than another warship.
The extreme maximum range of the main armament is mostly an academic discussion as I see it. The Bismarck's guns didn't have a particularly great range. It was only about 1000 yards longer than the KGV's 14 inch guns and the little 11 inch guns on the Scharnhorst ranged further than the Bismarck's. Even if the main armament can range out to 40,000 yards, there has never been an actual hit with a big gun past 27,000 yards.
With the all-or-nothing philosophy of armour, quite large portions of the ship are unarmoured. The hit through the bow that finished the Bismarck's mission didn't depend much on the particular type of weapon that fired it. Just about any big gun making a hit on her unarmoured bow would have crippled her the same way. (Pretty much what you were saying about damage on a commerce raider.)
I wonder also whether the short life of the German 15 inch gun was because of different standards regarding when a gun was "worn out".
Regards.
- Ivan.
I actually wrote up a very long-winded reply a couple weeks back to your post regarding Alaska's 12 inch guns but it got lost when there was a hiccup on this site as I was posting. The amount of data lost bothered me enough to stay away from this thread for a while. Hopefully I can remember some of the details:
I believe the ability of the Alaska's 12 inch shells to have equal penetrating power to shells from the Hood's 15 inch guns is mostly due to superior ballistic shape and a bit from superior construction. The Alaska's shells were much more aerodynamic and retained their velocity out much further.
Regarding the Bismarck as a commerce raider, I don't believe she was optimal for the purpose: She had very poor range. I also don't believe that reduced charge for a 15 inch shell would be useful for a commerce raider. Consider that no matter what the powder charge does to increase the life of the gun, the ship only carries around 100 rounds per main gun. I don't believe there ever has been a freighter built that is worthy of a 15 inch shell. The big guns work well for intimidation, but the secondary armament of 5.9 inch guns is quite sufficient for actual use on anything less than another warship.
The extreme maximum range of the main armament is mostly an academic discussion as I see it. The Bismarck's guns didn't have a particularly great range. It was only about 1000 yards longer than the KGV's 14 inch guns and the little 11 inch guns on the Scharnhorst ranged further than the Bismarck's. Even if the main armament can range out to 40,000 yards, there has never been an actual hit with a big gun past 27,000 yards.
With the all-or-nothing philosophy of armour, quite large portions of the ship are unarmoured. The hit through the bow that finished the Bismarck's mission didn't depend much on the particular type of weapon that fired it. Just about any big gun making a hit on her unarmoured bow would have crippled her the same way. (Pretty much what you were saying about damage on a commerce raider.)
I wonder also whether the short life of the German 15 inch gun was because of different standards regarding when a gun was "worn out".
Regards.
- Ivan.
I do a lot of shooting of old military rifles and live in Alaska. Sectional density and penetrating power are always big topics of discussion when it comes to Bears.....
I think you are correct that Bismark and Tirpitz were not designed as commerce raiders. Essentially sea superiority vessles in the traditions of the High Seas Fleet. Perhaps Graf Spee etc could be considered more commerce raider designs. The piecemeal dribbling out of the German Heavy ships without viable air support was a vast waste of resources. A concentration of resources would have participated a serious issue indeed for the Royal Navy and possibly her cheering section.
Indeed Alaska's super heavy shells, for their caliber, were potentially very effective on armor. However her own armor would not have permitted reliable protection against ships significantly larger than cruiser size. Magnificent steamers and beautiful in form, but a battle cruiser in effect with the limitations of that type. Amazingly for a USN type, the mechanicals of the turrets did have some "issues".
The superheavy 16" shells fired by the lightweight 16:50 of the Iowa's were probably equal to the Yamato 18" in penetration because of their high sectional denesity. It is amazing however to note that the USN had no real idea of the size and especially armament of the Yamato etc till after the war! The Island Empire was pretty good at keeping their secrets!
Bismark's high velocity rifles made some sense in the North Atlantic, especially before Radar became sophisticated, as combat ranges were not expected to be extremely long due to the prevailing visibilities. It is believed that Dorsetshire destroyed Bismark's main fire control station early in the final engagement, greatly reducing her effectiveness after a few early stradles on Rodney. Not everything can be protected against large caliber shell fire, as witnessed by the reduction in combat effectiveness at Guadalcanal of SODAK from a great number of mixed caliber hits, none of which penetrated the armored parts of the ship. She was lucky to have Washington, an effective ship, as a backup!
Lastly, the figures I remember for barrel life for full velocity charges for the USN ships was not greatly over 100 rounds. The famous Paris Gun of WWI had shells of graduated size, to be fired in order!
Cheers: T
I think you are correct that Bismark and Tirpitz were not designed as commerce raiders. Essentially sea superiority vessles in the traditions of the High Seas Fleet. Perhaps Graf Spee etc could be considered more commerce raider designs. The piecemeal dribbling out of the German Heavy ships without viable air support was a vast waste of resources. A concentration of resources would have participated a serious issue indeed for the Royal Navy and possibly her cheering section.
Indeed Alaska's super heavy shells, for their caliber, were potentially very effective on armor. However her own armor would not have permitted reliable protection against ships significantly larger than cruiser size. Magnificent steamers and beautiful in form, but a battle cruiser in effect with the limitations of that type. Amazingly for a USN type, the mechanicals of the turrets did have some "issues".
The superheavy 16" shells fired by the lightweight 16:50 of the Iowa's were probably equal to the Yamato 18" in penetration because of their high sectional denesity. It is amazing however to note that the USN had no real idea of the size and especially armament of the Yamato etc till after the war! The Island Empire was pretty good at keeping their secrets!
Bismark's high velocity rifles made some sense in the North Atlantic, especially before Radar became sophisticated, as combat ranges were not expected to be extremely long due to the prevailing visibilities. It is believed that Dorsetshire destroyed Bismark's main fire control station early in the final engagement, greatly reducing her effectiveness after a few early stradles on Rodney. Not everything can be protected against large caliber shell fire, as witnessed by the reduction in combat effectiveness at Guadalcanal of SODAK from a great number of mixed caliber hits, none of which penetrated the armored parts of the ship. She was lucky to have Washington, an effective ship, as a backup!
Lastly, the figures I remember for barrel life for full velocity charges for the USN ships was not greatly over 100 rounds. The famous Paris Gun of WWI had shells of graduated size, to be fired in order!
Cheers: T
R
redriver6
Guest
probably everyone here knows about these sites but i figured i'd post some links anywho..
http://www.hmshood.com/
http://www.kbismarck.com/
http://www.hmshood.com/
http://www.kbismarck.com/
I think we have rather drifted away from the original question.
regards Collin:ernae:
Hello Fliger747,
I also tend to shoot a lot of old military rifles. We have a pretty good thread going in the "Other Hobbies" forum. I don't hunt though.
Hi Collin,
Regarding the original topic, I believe that your "hypothetical" scenario was what actually happened. A ship heading directly at you presents a very good target and is much more vulnerable to plunging fire though for a shorter time.
With Naval weapons, the fall of the shot is an ellipse. The longer axis is parallel to the direction of the shot and is called the major axis (or semi-major). The shorter is called the minor (or semi-minor). Naval guns at extreme range especially when fired in groups tend to produce a pattern shaped like an ellipse. The dispersion will of course vary with range and with the particular mounting / gun involved, but there will always be a pattern. Now the issue is that this pattern at medium to long range is usually much bigger than an enemy ship. Even if aimed correctly, there is a fair chance that most or all of the shells will not actually hit the target. When a ship is heading directly toward you, the pattern of your shot will have a greater overlap with the target, so you have a better chance of a hit.
FWIW, the British KGV class had lots of problems with their mountings. I believe the Duke of York against Scharnhorst and the King George V herself averaged a bit less than 70% of the total possible rounds that could have been fired which means that various things failed about 30% of the time. I can find the actual statistics if you wish, but that is a ballpark correct number.
- Ivan.
I also tend to shoot a lot of old military rifles. We have a pretty good thread going in the "Other Hobbies" forum. I don't hunt though.
Hi Collin,
Regarding the original topic, I believe that your "hypothetical" scenario was what actually happened. A ship heading directly at you presents a very good target and is much more vulnerable to plunging fire though for a shorter time.
With Naval weapons, the fall of the shot is an ellipse. The longer axis is parallel to the direction of the shot and is called the major axis (or semi-major). The shorter is called the minor (or semi-minor). Naval guns at extreme range especially when fired in groups tend to produce a pattern shaped like an ellipse. The dispersion will of course vary with range and with the particular mounting / gun involved, but there will always be a pattern. Now the issue is that this pattern at medium to long range is usually much bigger than an enemy ship. Even if aimed correctly, there is a fair chance that most or all of the shells will not actually hit the target. When a ship is heading directly toward you, the pattern of your shot will have a greater overlap with the target, so you have a better chance of a hit.
FWIW, the British KGV class had lots of problems with their mountings. I believe the Duke of York against Scharnhorst and the King George V herself averaged a bit less than 70% of the total possible rounds that could have been fired which means that various things failed about 30% of the time. I can find the actual statistics if you wish, but that is a ballpark correct number.
- Ivan.
R
redriver6
Guest
actually it was my 'hypothetical' scenario....but my original thought was 'what if' the Hood and PoW had continued to close at high speed...which would also have reduced the plunging angle of the the Bismarck/Prinz's shells. that would have been a more agressive and somewhat 'death ride' approach. there may in fact be no real way the outcome would have changed much...unless like mentioned earlier if the RN cruisers had joined the attack.....maybe a Battle of the River Platte on a larger scale?
R
redriver6
Guest
upon further review...this was Jutland on a 'smaller' scale...
The RN lost a tactical element of the engagement but won the overall operation by sinking the Bismarck...
Garzke and Dulin (Axis and Neutral Battleships) actually compliment Capt Leach (Prince of Wales) and his green crew in doing very well in a difficult situation, being overmatched and not really having opportunity to be fully trained up as was the Bismark. Irony was that Tirpitz was not included in the mission because of not being fully worked up yet, though probably with a higher training state that was PO'W when she was thrown into the gap. The Brits always seemed to do well when put into a pinch, rising to the ocassion. However it always seemed that they tended to rely on this a bit too much!
Garzke and Dulin bring up the question of Jean Bart, and if the Brits could have brought her over to their side. A very capable ship and possibly a good match for Bismark.
Cheers: T
Garzke and Dulin bring up the question of Jean Bart, and if the Brits could have brought her over to their side. A very capable ship and possibly a good match for Bismark.
Cheers: T