Bismarck and her contemporaries

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Just re found this which is applicable to some parts of this thread.

Damages on USS Massachussetts produced by "moderate sea".

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/ ... amage.html

Norm al | Highlight & Com m ent
BB59/L11
Ser.
1. During the morning watch of February 7 1943 while making
passage off Cape Hatteras this vessel on course 196° true, speed 18.5 knots,
encountered a moderate sea which did considerable damage to this vessel
during the next twenty-four hours. This damage and recommendations are
listed in enclosures (A), (B) and (C). The maximum force of the wind was 6,
sea 4 which varried slightly on either side of the starboard beam.
2. The seas were only moderate with an occassional heavy wave. At
1614 on February 7, 1943 as the heavy weather was increasing slowed to 15
knots with no reduction in the water coming on board. At about 2030 a
particularly heavy sea came on board which threatened to flood the engine
rooms thru the ventilation intake ducts and short out the main switchboards.
Speed was slowed to 12 knots with little reduction in the amount of water
coming on board. As turret one was being flooded due to the bloomers
carrying away it was impractical to head into the sea and to place the sea
on or abaft the quarter would have cleared the stern of aircraft.
3. At 0707 on February 8, 1943 the seas having moderated went
ahead at 15 knots and at 0225 resumed 18.5 knots.
4. Turret #1 was flooded because of the failure of the bloomers.
The turret was trained to port in order to reduce the amount of water
entering the gun ports but it was found that too much water was coming thru
the after hatch and ventilation ducts. As at this time it was thought that
no serious damage was being done to the turret the turret was trained on the
CONFIDENTIAL U.S.S. MASSACHUSETTS,
February 20, 1943.
From: The Executive Officer.
To : The Commanding Officer.
Subject: Heavy Weather Damage, report of.
Enclosure: (A) Report of damage and recommendations under the cognizance of
the Bureau of Ordnance.
(B) Report of damage and recommendations under the cognizance of
the Bureau of Ships (Engineering).
(C) Report of damage and recommendations under the cognizance of
the Bureau of Ships (Hull).
(D) Extracts from log of February 7, and 8, 1943.
Assembly Automation QuickStick Linear Motor Conveyor Fast, Accurate, Programmable www.magnemotion.com
Sail the San Blas Islands View the boats, see the schedules, plan your trip, and reserve online. www.boatstocolombia.com
Armstrong Condensate Pump Reduce heat energy loss, and increase steam system efficiency.
Researcher@Large - BB-59 USS Massachusetts Storm Damage, 1943 Page 1 of 3
http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/ ... amage.html 5/30/2012
port bow. After pumping the water down it was found that water had entered
the center column. This in itself did no serious damage but this water
flowing thru the conduit tubes to the main power connection boxes soaked the
main power cables necessitating their renewal and placing the turret out of
commission for ten days.
5. During this storm the maximum roll was 13 degrees and the
maximum pitch as read from the trim indicator dampened
BB59/L11
U.S.S. MASSACHUSETTS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
to give an average was 3 feet. This vessel is extremely wet. Even on a calm
day with very little wind the weather decks are wet with spray. On this
particular day no automatic weapons on the main deck could have been manned
and only those on the lee side of the superstructure could have been manned.
In fact, it would have been impossible to fight the ship to windward with
anything except perhaps turret 2 and upper 5" mounts.
E. M. THOMPSON
CONFIDENTIAL February 20, 1943.
Subject: Heavy Weather Damage, report of,
Researcher@Large - BB-59 USS Massachusetts Storm Damage, 1943 Page 2 of 3
http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/ ... amage.html 5/30/2012
SOURCE:
National Archives & Records Administration, Seattle Branch
Record Group 181, Ship Files ca 1940-1950
Transcribed by RESEARCHER @ LARGE. Formatting & Comments Copyright R@L.
Ships Hom e | Researcher@ Large Hom e
- Contact RAL
Researcher@Large - BB-59 USS Massachusetts Storm Damage, 1943 Page 3 of 3
http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/ ... amage.html 5/30/2012
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by alecsandros »

Hello Karl,
I knew that one. But in truth, most WW2 battlehips were wet ships... Scharhnorst... KGV... Vittorio Veneto... Rodney... even Bismarck to some extent...
The damage suffered depends very much on the way the ship is handled, and not only on ship desgin...
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Hi Alex,

I know very well that Scharnhorst or Richelieu were quite wet ships. I think that one of the most famous one is HMS Hood which according to Bruce Taylor's book was incredibly wet. Scharnhorst "wetness" even speed up the instalation of the "Atlantic bow" which helped very little to fix this condition.

Let's remember that battleships, due to the low profile characteritics were usually wet ships anyway.

However Hood, Scharnhorst, Richelieu have never been pretended in a different light than their actual performance in rough seas, but the South Dakotas and their overgrown cousins, the Iowas, have been regarded as some of the "best" battleships ever designed, built and "fought". Which is why is important to put these events in the proper context.

You must pay attention to the emphasis that the captain of the Massashussetts place in his report, it is clear that he is alarmed that moderate seas and winds produce such problems in his brand new battleship. It's like saying that an F-22 Raptor tend to have problems due to turbulence while flying at subsonic speed. The report is categoric that the situation and damages are wide beyond what can be expected. HMS Hood was wet in the rough North Seas, but as far as we have in record the water didn't get into the airducts generating the risk of short circuits, flooding and water pouring into the turrets in a moderate seas nearby the coast, even when it is near Cape Hatteras.

That's is what is important to check within this report.

Regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by yellowtail3 »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Let's remember that battleships, due to the low profile characteritics were usually wet ships anyway.
alrighty...
However Hood, Scharnhorst, Richelieu have never been pretended in a different light than their actual performance in rough seas
Can they same be said of Bismarck? Anyhow... not sure what you mean. Did the USN (or someone?) claim that those USN ships were the steadiest of all in stormy seas?
...but the South Dakotas and their overgrown cousins, the Iowas
Overgrown, how? They're a little bigger than Bismarck or Hood, and a lot smaller than the Yamatos... about the same size as Vanguard (makes sense, as Vanguard & the Iowas were the last of their respective countries' battleships). If anything, I'd say the South Dakotas were undersized, what with all the armament they packed... how is it that the Iowas are overgrown? My impression is that they're improved South Dakotas with space for a lot more horsepower, and somewhat better guns & armor.
...have been regarded as some of the "best" battleships ever designed, built and "fought".
It's a pretty easy argument to make. I'm taking it your position is that... they weren't substantially better in a seaway than some other ships? Well... they did make it through Typhoon Cobra...
Shift Colors... underway.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by alecsandros »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:

However Hood, Scharnhorst, Richelieu have never been pretended in a different light than their actual performance in rough seas, but the South Dakotas and their overgrown cousins, the Iowas, have been regarded as some of the "best" battleships ever designed, built and "fought". Which is why is important to put these events in the proper context.

egards,
Ahahaha :D
That's right....
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

alecsandros:
Ahahaha
That's right....
Hi Alex! I am happy you conccur because your's in one opinion I really value. I am also putting together, on this South Dakota contemporary, some evidence regarding their Second Guadalcanal performance. In reality is nothing new, has always been there and many forum members know it, but has always been treated like a dirty little secret. But need to finish the idea.

However this seagoing problem reported from it's own skipper, not a forum fan, on the Massassuchets need to be addressed and put into context with all the "common knowledge" that use to be so loud.

Regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by alecsandros »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:alecsandros:

However this seagoing problem reported from it's own skipper, not a forum fan, on the Massassuchets need to be addressed and put into context with all the "common knowledge" that use to be so loud.

Regards,
I don;t know the displacement though.
If the ship was in deep load, it must have had a lower freeboard than normal, and water would come in...

Prince of Wales took on water too at Denmark Strait - and not only through the shell holes below the waterline :)
yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by yellowtail3 »

alecsandros wrote:
Prince of Wales took on water too at Denmark Strait - and not only through the shell holes below the waterline :)
True enough, but that does not serve Karl's point in this thread, which is - if I understand it correctly? - to find and trumpet some perceived flaws (real or otherwise) in the South Dakotas in order to bolster his contention that the Bismarck was a wundership.

So far as I know, the USN was satisfied enough with the hull form of the South Dakotas (and Iowas, and North Carolinas) that they never redesigned/rebuilt their bows after construction, as was done with most of the German big ship.

to post topic... South Dakota underway in big swells. Will she survive this? Or will she founder?
Image
Shift Colors... underway.
ede144
Member
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by ede144 »

One should take into account that Karl is pretty long in this forum and fought a lot of arguments against people which thought, it's flying the stars and stripes, it must be superior to everything else. In fact it would have been no easy task for any battleship in Ww 2 to sink Bs or TP.. Even Bs last battle wasn't that easy going for the RN.
Regards
Ede
yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by yellowtail3 »

ede144 wrote:One should take into account that Karl is pretty long in this forum and fought a lot of arguments against people which thought, it's flying the stars and stripes, it must be superior to everything else.
I understand that he's very sensitive on this matter.
In fact it would have been no easy task for any battleship in Ww 2 to sink Bs or TP.. Even Bs last battle wasn't that easy going for the RN.
Regards
Ede
Isn't that the truth. big ships, lots of armor and compartments... they're supposed to be tough. And Bismarck's last battle did require considerable ammo expenditure, and a few torpedoes. She may not have put up much fight - or not much effective fight - but she was definitely hard to put down.
Shift Colors... underway.
ede144
Member
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by ede144 »

Low on fuel, low on ammo and damaged by it's own guj fire. I don't know how long they would have been able to go on?

Regards
Ede
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

ede144:
it's flying the stars and stripes, it must be superior to everything else.
Well, that can be true after the war when the US used the german technology to fight their Cold War. An Abrams look like more to a TIger than a Sherman. And has anyone here heard the name Von Braun? Since he died the US was never able to design a rocket as powerfull as the Saturn V, put a man on the moon or, as today, been able to put a man in orbit if not using a russian 1960's capsule and rocket.

Something is also true: if it;s flying stars and stripes you know for certain that it is more expensive and with a lot of hours of maintenance (the same "flaws" that US armed forces fans find in German WWII equipment).
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by RF »

yellowtail3 wrote:
In fact it would have been no easy task for any battleship in Ww 2 to sink Bs or TP.. Even Bs last battle wasn't that easy going for the RN.
Regards
Ede
Isn't that the truth. big ships, lots of armor and compartments... they're supposed to be tough. And Bismarck's last battle did require considerable ammo expenditure, and a few torpedoes. She may not have put up much fight - or not much effective fight - but she was definitely hard to put down.
The real test would have been the Bismarcks' crew operating at peak efficiency in that battle, instead of already being worn down by four days of continuous battle stations....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by yellowtail3 »

RF wrote: The real test would have been the Bismarcks' crew operating at peak efficiency in that battle, instead of already being worn down by four days of continuous battle stations....
True. If operating at peak efficiency, they might have shot down one of those 90 knot Swordfish. Or maybe two of them. And if they were really lucky, they'd have hit the one that shot them in the ass and left them circling.
Shift Colors... underway.
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by boredatwork »

Karl Heidenreich wrote: Well, that can be true after the war when the US used the german technology to fight their Cold War. An Abrams look like more to a TIger than a Sherman.
By that logic then the Germans used British and French technology to fight WW2 given that her Panzers "looked" more like the French FT-17 and various Vickers inter war tanks than they did the A7V and LK2.


*rolleyes*
Post Reply