Hood/Prince of Wales vs Bismarck/Prinz

[fliger747]

Holland was according to his plan trying to reduce his range and vunerability to plunging fire. They were about to turn to port to unmask all guns when Hood recieved the fatal hit. A ship heading toward you presents a good target as range was always the hard thing to compute and the length of the ship presents a much better likelyhood of a hit.

The Hood's 15 inch guns were the classic WWI guns fitted to most british battleships (all except Prince of Whales class and Nelson Class). They were even fitted to the post war Vanguard. A somewhat mediocre weapon, they were reliable and accurate. However even the very powerful 12" guns fitted to the USN Alaska class had at least equal penetration.

My guess is that the parsimonious British had less recent gunnery practice that the just worked up Bismark. The P o'W's two hits did eventually prove fatal to Bismark's sorte in the final event. The fuel loss forward being the most critical, but the other did penetrate the side belt and flood an aux generator room.

The Germans biggest problem... Admiral Lutjens...

An intersting historical episode! T.

 

[crashaz]

Something tells me Hitler made them all fell like 'Please don't let me screw up' .


A paralyzing situation for all but their best military leaders... of which the Navy had none other than the sniveling Doenitz.

 

[hewman100]

Something tells me Hitler made them all feel like 'Please don't let me screw up' .

After the ignominious end of the Graf Spee this was the Kriegsmarines last chance to show the potential of big gun raiders and it failed, thus reducing it to effectly a U-boat Navy.

 

[Sascha66]

There is a very interesting book written by a surviving officer of the Bismarck in German (I checked and it was translated: Battleship Bismarck : A Survivor's Story , Müllenheim-Rechberg, Burkard, Freiherr von, 1910-, Annapolis, Md. : Naval Institute Press, c1980.). Freiherr von Müllenheim-Rechberg was adjutant to Captain Lindemann and 4th artillery officer.

As I gather from the book, the crew of the Bismarck were surprised by the result of the first broadsides, so there must have been some element of fluke involved. But it also becomes clear from the book that the Bismarck as a ship was vastly superior to any one Britith battleship of the time regarding offensive and defensive capabilities (borne out by the amount of damage necessary to eventually sink him). The artillery technology was also much more advanced than their British counterparts. They also had a crack crew and an excellent first gunnery officer who established excellent drills.

I believe that British naval officers probably underestimated the strength of the Bismarck, which would be understandable since she was an innovative ship for her time.

For me it is simple: to sink Bismarck, due to his overwhelming strength, the British would always have needed superior numbers, close range or luck (I am assuming that the naval skills were equal on both sides). As it turned out, a combination of all three turned out to be involved - a huge fleet giving chase, lucky torpedo hits on the rudder delivered by planes and close-range torpedo attacks to after close-range pounding by artillery to eventually sink Bismarck.

Bismarck was just one ship and the RN then still ruled the Atlantic.

 

[fliger747]

I have several interesting books on Bismark, including the "Survivor" book. Bismark was of course a well founded warship, though not a particularly inovative one. Protection wise perhaps an updated version of those that fought a Jutland would be a good thought train. Bismark did not introduce any major ideas in propulsion, armament or protection.

It did not take long in the final showdown to render her totally ineffective and she did not score a single return hit. German optics were always quite good as were the quality of their armaments. The British, in the interwar period were so parsimonious that it is surprising that there was any Royal Navy at all. Think Bismark as a well executed and ballanced ship on a high tonnage, utilizing conservative construction.

Both Radar and aerial reconissance probably doomed the lone surace raider concept.

Had the Kriegsmarine actually waited till Bismark, Tirpitz and accompanying cruisers been able to sorte together they might have been able to shut down the Atlantic for a while and make some difference. Bottled up and destroyed in detail. What they lacked, as well as the British ships, legs....

Cheers: t.

 

[Sascha66]

So Bismarck was only bigger not better... Which ship was regarded as the most advanced of the age at the time?

Cheers,
Sascha

 

[fliger747]

Of any 35,000 ton ship the American South Dakota's had by far the best suite of protection endurance, anti aircraft protection and fire control. Given the Bismark has the most advanced powerplant of any EUROPEAN battleship. That said the USN ships of all types of the period achieved greater reliability and great economy/range with very high pressure/temperature steam conditions.

Bismark was not equipped to use her radar for gun laying rangefinding. In good visibility her excellent optical rangefinders worked well enough but was not the wave of the future. Washington in her night action against Krishima demonstrated the devestating effect of a good fire control system, in a matter of minutes. SODAK in the same engagement, due to some really self induced problems did demonstrate the effectiveness of her protection system. She did loose much effectiveness beacuse of the many hits penetrating lightly protected areas. Not one round penetrated belt, barbetts or the turrets, even at a fairly close range. Bismarks evenmtual loss was hastened by this same problem.

Armor. USN evaluation vrs the 16"45 cal rifle as fitted on Washington and SODAK was that the citadel and magazines were well protected, but there was little on these ships above the waterline not vunerable to this weapon at all ranges. The deck was penetrable outside of 11,000 meters.

Range: The power plant condition were not optimum for efficency at high speeds, a factor that with the loss of forward fuel, tied her operationally into a fatal path. The choice of a three shaft arrangement also proved to be unfortunate, allowing virtually no effective compensation for the jammed rudder scenario. The ships did exhibit excellent watertight subdivision. Furthermore the three shaft/ rudder setup was rather unstable in yaw, needing more frequent rudder correction than her contempories. Her available speed of 20 knots in a following seaway certainly helped her persuers finally catch her.

Armament: Designed on the smaller (generally) trend in weapons of the other European newer Battleships. Four turrets vrs three, more weight, longer belt, it's all a tradeoff. Her lackluster anti aircraft battery, not even fending off the impossibly slow Swordfish, was a major mis-estimation of the changing nature of sea warfare. Late in the pacific war, fast battleships were well armed enough to be something to avoid rather than to attack. The powder for the 15" was somewhat inovatively in brass cases rather than bags, which helped push the optimum loading rate to a possible 3 RPM. However the light shells had a fast muzel velocity and were optimum for short ranges as in lov viz in the North sea, but did not have the sectional density such as in the USN super heavy shells that gave superior penetration at most ranges. A maximum 30 degree elevation made accuracy problematical in a rolling seaway and caused a falloff in accuracy. Possibly a cause of her not making ANY hits in her final action. It did not permit maximum range of the rifles to be exploited. A function of the design being optimized for a low vizibility envoronment before the possibilities of Radar were realized.

A very creditable design by essentially a continental power, but not used to emphasize their considerable strengths. Perhaps only a well handled Iowa could have steamed her way out of the situation, but it was not that navy's style to try to get into such perdicaments. Lutjens pulled a couple of boners, in a situation that allowed none.

Cheers: T.

 

[Collin]

So Bismarck was only bigger not better... Which ship was regarded as the most advanced of the age at the time?

Cheers,
Sascha

Oh Lord...now there's a can of worms......

Each nation thought their latest was the ultimate battleship at the time, trouble was their attitude to others and misplaced belief in themselves.
This attitude is still reflected in some books and other media relating to those time's, patriotism getting the better of fact.

IMHO-

Yanks for the monoblock barrels.
Japanese for the design of the hull.
Brits for the armour fitting and Officer's bar.
French and Italian for the galley and party-time in port.

Most probably the most advanced ship at the time was HMS Belfast, due to the experiments and findings found about her mining in 1939. These findings involved the whiplash effect on the hull and shock transmission through into the seating of the ancillary equipment like generators and pumps, it was realized how important this was when the ship had been damaged for this equipment to be able to function.
With American entry into the war and the Lend Lease clauses, this information was made available to USN Bureau of Ships and the American shipbuilders and incorporated into the capital ships then building.

One of the major reason's for the short legs on Brit ships was because of the worldwide refuelling/repair bases available to the RN. This was old thinking and didn't take into account aircraft (when this was started only seagulls flew).

American 12" guns were super heavy modern guns and not really comparable to guns made in 1915.

German crews were as good as any other nations, the difference is in the attitude of the political leaders. When you don't have to rely on merchant shipping to bring in the essentials for your country's wellbeing the training of the senior staff tends to go by the board so that fleet tactics is very old school, Commercial Raiding was the tactic employed and was in some cases quite successful.

regards Collin:ernae:

 

[Collin]

Of any 35,000 ton ship the American South Dakota's had by far the best suite of protection endurance, anti aircraft protection and fire control. Given the Bismark has the most advanced powerplant of any EUROPEAN battleship. That said the USN ships of all types of the period achieved greater reliability and great economy/range with very high pressure/temperature steam conditions.

Bismark was not equipped to use her radar for gun laying rangefinding. In good visibility her excellent optical rangefinders worked well enough but was not the wave of the future. Washington in her night action against Krishima demonstrated the devestating effect of a good fire control system, in a matter of minutes. SODAK in the same engagement, due to some really self induced problems did demonstrate the effectiveness of her protection system. She did loose much effectiveness beacuse of the many hits penetrating lightly protected areas. Not one round penetrated belt, barbetts or the turrets, even at a fairly close range. Bismarks evenmtual loss was hastened by this same problem.

Armor. USN evaluation vrs the 16"45 cal rifle as fitted on Washington and SODAK was that the citadel and magazines were well protected, but there was little on these ships above the waterline not vunerable to this weapon at all ranges. The deck was penetrable outside of 11,000 meters.

Range: The power plant condition were not optimum for efficency at high speeds, a factor that with the loss of forward fuel, tied her operationally into a fatal path. The choice of a three shaft arrangement also proved to be unfortunate, allowing virtually no effective compensation for the jammed rudder scenario. The ships did exhibit excellent watertight subdivision. Furthermore the three shaft/ rudder setup was rather unstable in yaw, needing more frequent rudder correction than her contempories. Her available speed of 20 knots in a following seaway certainly helped her persuers finally catch her.

Armament: Designed on the smaller (generally) trend in weapons of the other European newer Battleships. Four turrets vrs three, more weight, longer belt, it's all a tradeoff. Her lackluster anti aircraft battery, not even fending off the impossibly slow Swordfish, was a major mis-estimation of the changing nature of sea warfare. Late in the pacific war, fast battleships were well armed enough to be something to avoid rather than to attack. The powder for the 15" was somewhat inovatively in brass cases rather than bags, which helped push the optimum loading rate to a possible 3 RPM. However the light shells had a fast muzel velocity and were optimum for short ranges as in lov viz in the North sea, but did not have the sectional density such as in the USN super heavy shells that gave superior penetration at most ranges. A maximum 30 degree elevation made accuracy problematical in a rolling seaway and caused a falloff in accuracy. Possibly a cause of her not making ANY hits in her final action. It did not permit maximum range of the rifles to be exploited. A function of the design being optimized for a low vizibility envoronment before the possibilities of Radar were realized.

A very creditable design by essentially a continental power, but not used to emphasize their considerable strengths. Perhaps only a well handled Iowa could have steamed her way out of the situation, but it was not that navy's style to try to get into such perdicaments. Lutjens pulled a couple of boners, in a situation that allowed none.

Cheers: T.

Why invoke American capabilities of 1943 in comparison? In the time frame of the thread American senior staff were of the same old school thoughts as the Germans.
Lutjens, Bey, Doenitz, had to operate within confines of their experience and under the orders of a ex WW1 corporal. With orders not to risk encounters with the RN capital ships because of German political standing.
American policy was 'battleship rules' coupled with isolationism, with a couple of forward thinkers in the fledgling carrier groups in the Pacific.

By this time British charges were bag-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BL15inch108lbCorditeSC280QtrChargeDiagram.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_15_inch_naval_gun

American engines were excellent but you had to pay the price in space.

German engines were over-engineered and complicated.

British engines were old fashioned and short legged.

regards Collin:ernae:

 

[fliger747]

Tirpitz was a contempoary of the later ships. Bismark had she survived would have had to play on a harder field. Washington was comissioned about the time of Bismark'd demise. Ceratinly a worthy advisary on a much smaller tonnage. The SODAK engines were quite compact. She obtained much better protection over Washington by having more HP and a shorter hull with shorter but a thicker belt.

Hood was in my estimation one of the most beautiful warships ever built. But a victim of roundtuit modernization of the deck armour. An old naval Aviator's saying "better Lucky than good, any day". Adelbert Schnider was lucky, Holland's boys were not. Till just the end of the war, all American rifles of 8" and larger were bag guns. As these guns were often employed with reduced charges (10x bore life) for shore bombarbment, this made sense.

Bismark had some geographical advantages and disadvantages. Without a requirement for Panama canal passage, beam could be optimized which helps keep a good side protection at the forward barbettes and allows for improved torpedo protection, though these ships did in finality have the same system as the Scharnhorst. However the shallowness of the Kiel Canal and harbours of Germany did not allow as deep a hull girder as might be optimum.

One has to admire the British resolve to "Sink the Bismark". It became a test of national wills. Fearing Hitler more than the Brits was their downfall when it came to operational decision. Bismark was big, which conveyed many advantages when you look at the limitations that adherence to the 35,000 ton treaty inflicted on Rodney, Nelson and the Prince of Wales bunch.

I have always admired Suffok and Norfolk tagging along in and out of the fog by the Denmark Strait. Perhaps I'll drag out "Sink the Bismark" and watch it again tonight!

The saga will always remain a fascinating classic! Dogfight of the leviathians!

Cheers: T.

 

[hewman100]

Her lackluster anti aircraft battery, not even fending off the impossibly slow Swordfish, was a major mis-estimation of the changing nature of sea warfare.

Cheers: T.

In a previous thread I had a discussion regarding this as I was under the same impression that the AAA on Bismarck was inadequate. It wasn't, it was actually rather better than that of its RN counterparts.

I and my opponent agreed that it was the fact of trying to hit head-on in the storm a target that had an 40ft wingspan and 7ft height flying at about a 110 kts just above the waves would quite impossible even with radar assisted guns.

 

[fliger747]

H100:

I missed that discussion! Certainly everyone underestimated what sort of anti aircraft batteries would be required. Even the modern PO'W was found wanting when she and Repulse went out on their final sorte. The losses sustained in the Med were absolutly insane!

The USN, who finally got the idea, started out the war very poorly equipped. Certainly 50'cals didn't cut the mustard. By the end of the war the 20 mm was considered a "noisemaker" and the excellent Bofors "lacking knockdown power". But by that time it wasn't enough to shy the pilots aim. VT fuzes did a lot to help the 5" 38/Mk37 director combo become more than just adequate.

A hard lesson of anti aircraft defense... don't go out by yourself!

You have to admire Esmond and the other Stringbag guys for being there when their country needed them, under very difficult conditions. One of my favorite stories however was when the Swordfish could not catch the Itallian Fleet steaming into a headwind..... At least the British aerial torpedoes worked!

This was a time of extreme change in technology. One of the most important developments, accomplished by the "Boffin's" in Britan, was the Cavity Magnetron, which shared with the Americans, allowed development of the very effective centimeter radars.

This was a time that challenged souls and brought out the very best and worst of human nature.

 

[CrisGer]

remarkable thread and postings, very interesting to read.

my cousin was Captain of BB 39 (USS Arizona) at Pearl, and remains at his post. He and my grandfather who was surface mostly but who also wrote some of the early Sub doctrine for USN had many discussoins about what is talked about here, and over my time researching in the years since, I found the development of the capital ships worldwide very interesting and complex. Above all, the decisions of the men on the bridge and the overall command make the outcome somewhat set, tho moment to moment events always play a role as well. I continue to hope to find a naval sim that will allow true gaming of the Bismark sortie, I was able to game the Graf Spee campaign using pencil, paper and waterline (1200 scale) on a tennis court with the help of the British Admiralty, and saw some of the technical achievments that the Kriegsmarine had achieved playing a part in that overall engagement. The german fleet of which the Bismark was an early element was sadly never to see reality as Hitler had promised NOT to go to war before a balanced fleet was ready for sea, and the losses of the Norweigan Campaign were a brutal blow to the naiscenet fleet of the early war years.

As noted, Hitler had NO idea of what a deep water fleet could do, and doomed any hopes the naval command had of real success. I am sorry to see both Lutjens and Doenitz dismissed, for they both has many skills. Other family members were both surface and U Boat in the Kriegsmarine and did not dismiss either of them lightly, from what i have heard and read.

In the end, three factors, Men, ships and the sea all played a part in this remarkable sortie which almost succeeded and which, if balanced with sufficent escorts and a larger main element (including the Tirpitz) might have had a remarkable effect. The British Admiralty was well aware of the danger and responded accordingly.

Re the Hood and her visit to Skye, i dont know the facts of it, as i never followed up on the information i learned when in Skye in 1974, it was a poignant story and i had no reason to doubt the people who told me about it. It was a moving story. It would be interesting to find out, probably the local hiking club at Portree might well have the info and with the magic of the internet, it might be possible to learn more.

It is very interesting to read such excellent points about this encounter and I hope to think about what ppl have posted more, and at some point, to try to game some more of this out. The remarkable modding community of Silent Hunter IV has finally developed working assests to make it possible to play this out with all the capital units, and with the publication of some of the better more modern sims, such as Distant Guns and Jutland by Storm Eagle, we may get to actually try full modern computing power on navals sims and work on some of these questions in more detail. Thanks to all for this great thread.

 

[Collin]

CrisGer,

there was an old game called "Great Naval Battles", which came on 4 cd's.
The first 3 were WW2 and the 'bonus disk' was WW1.

Now if you are into watching the ships take hits and sink then this game isn't for you, but, if you are into strategy and tactics then see if you can get hold of a set.

It also has a lovely damage control page for each ship where you can allocate men and pumps to fires/flooding etc.

Mission builder was quite good as well.

regards Collin:ernae:

 

[fliger747]

Captain Franklin Van Valkenberg and Admiral Isaac Kidd, both lost with Arizona were well regarded officers. Today is the day set aside in America to specially honor such men.

T.

 

[fliger747]

I recently viewed again my old CD of "Sink the Bismark" and re-read several of the books I have on the subject. It would be interesting to "game" several of the possibilities open to Lujtens, and what the possibilities might have been for a sortie with Tripitz. This just could have brought the US into the war earlier.

Cheers: T

 

[redriver6]

I recently viewed again my old CD of "Sink the Bismark" and re-read several of the books I have on the subject. It would be interesting to "game" several of the possibilities open to Lujtens, and what the possibilities might have been for a sortie with Tripitz. This just could have brought the US into the war earlier.

Cheers: T

yep that would be cool...

 

[dmaloof]

Hi, i always wondered this. Bismarck caried up to 3 Ar -196 planes for recon and possible sortie. Were these carried on that trip when she was sunk? oif so, why werent they used as a offensive weapons against the British ships in order to provide some form of air cover close by.

 

[Collin]

Hi, i always wondered this. Bismarck caried up to 3 Ar -196 planes for recon and possible sortie. Were these carried on that trip when she was sunk? oif so, why werent they used as a offensive weapons against the British ships in order to provide some form of air cover close by.

There was a gale blowing with heavy sea's, launch catapults on both German ships and POW were fixed athwart-ship, this would have required the ship to turn beam on to the sea to launch aircraft.

To launch would have perhaps made the ship vulnerable to the enemy or have been tactically wrong and most probably a suicide mission for the aircraft crew as landing would have been a terminal affair in those sea's.

regards Collin:ernae:

 

[fliger747]

There was a gale blowing with heavy sea's, launch catapults on both German ships and POW were fixed athwart-ship, this would have required the ship to turn beam on to the sea to launch aircraft.

To launch would have perhaps made the ship vulnerable to the enemy or have been tactically wrong and most probably a suicide mission for the aircraft crew as landing would have been a terminal affair in those sea's.

regards Collin:ernae:

The plan toward the end was to launch one of (or the remaining) seaplane with the war diary to preserve the ships actions for study.. and eventually history. Apparently either the catapult or the plane (I forget) had been damaged and the aircrews went down with the ship.

Cruisers, at least in USN practice, carried aircraft mostly for scouting, such as the Marblehead's patrols in the Mid-South Atlantic. Battleships carried airccraft mostly for spotting of shellfire. The Japanese used them at night for dropping illumination, as in the slot. Some capital ships used dye in the bursting charges to differentiate their splashes from other ships in line.

Bringing aircraft aboard always an interesting issue. Bismark was probably not tactically able to make this evolution during much of the time she was shadowed. Techniques used were to make a turn and have the aircraft land in the bight where the ship would make a "wave shadow". Sometimes oil could be released as well to calm the surface. Another issue for Bismark, being chased, sighting of her aircraft could narrow her location, as the presence of land aircraft revealed the presence of nearby carriers.

Cheers: T