Bismarck and her contemporaries

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Marwic

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by Marwic »

Djoser wrote:I don't get it, Karl. I don't think he meant to ridicule, though I could be wrong of course. Maybe he is even correct, if one considers the relative ability of the modern US Army to maintain complex technological weaponry (very good), versus the ability of the already overstrained German maintenance system in dealing with the situation on the Eastern front, especially.

I just want the thread to get back on track...
1.- The M1 is a design that came from the 70's, so they have been around for about 40 years. Tiger was in service just 2 years (canceled in favour of Königtiger). If Tiger (or ANY other German tank) would have been "around" for that many years, under peace circumstances at home but with some wars to be proven it is more than evident that that tank would be way more reliable and easy to fix, cheaper and more easy to produce, manta in, etc.
2.- Real question is if the US system would be able to work UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES that germans has to face in eastern front. I wonder if the US would be able to keep a maintenance system for such that tank (not to talk the "gas" it needs to roll) if they were invading Russia... I bet they would fail as miserabily as germans did if not even far worse.
sineatimorar
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:42 pm

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by sineatimorar »

Having more protected length does not mean being better protected if the thickness is insufficient. There is an interesting quote from Nathan Okun. If you haven`t read his article you should do it.
Why are NC and SoDak excluded?

"... Since then, I have learned more about various armors and
projectiles, as can be seen in the latest versions of my programs at http://www.warships1.com or http://www.combinedfleet.com. These results have forced me to downgrade BISMARCK's armor significantly -- the belt plus sloped deck at the waterline turns out to be much less protective than I originally thought since I now have the re-evaluated the effectiveness of German WWII naval Wh homogeneous armor and have discovered that the brittleness of this material (as indicated by a Percent Elongation before it snaps in two in tests of
only 18-20% (18% is the Krupp spec) compared to the better homogenous British NCA and U.S. STS/Class "B" armors at 25% or more) makes it significantly inferior against large-size projectiles, though against projectile 8" (203mm) and less, there is no penalty, to my knowledge. This
is reflected in the German Navy's "G.Kdos. 100" armor penetration tables developed by Krupp in 1940, not just by my own evaluations, which confirm them."

"... As I said above, I have learned more and some of
the things I said are no longer correct, but in almost all cases this makes BISMARCK worse and worse as a warship by WWII standards -- I rate it as a battle-cruiser, not a true battleship, by the criteria of having ranges where it would be at least partially invulnerable to enemy fire being the mark of a battleship and very little of BISMARCK can resist any enemy battleship fire of any WWII warship at any range. Use the German G.Kdos. 100 penetration tables and try to find ranges where anything but that narrow waterline area is immune to its own guns (to say nothing of foreign guns); you will not find any areas of the ship that are protected at any useful range, much at no range zone whatsoever. Turrets, barbettes, upper hull, conning towers, whatever; all the armor on BISMARCK is essentially useless at any range against any enemy if they get direct hits on those parts of the ship.

Thus, aside from some details, the results of that article still stand.

Nathan Okun"
Do not be so reliant on individual sources. Although Nathan's work is highly accurate, I have found some glaring contradiction in his conclusions. Either contradicting himself or 'the official' records he so often quotes from. This statement above is completely refuted by his own programs!

For instance below is early attempt to gather information on the little known 53cm/52 gerat 36 cannon in which he included a simulated 2,200 kg ap shell
it contradicts some of the above quote. The Wh is based on the premise that the backing material of Kcna is equivalent to Wh ( source one of Nathan's essays) note there are some errors in gun data but that does not effect the point I am making.I am using Nathan's latest penetration program.
Armor penetration (mm)
main belt deck
elev (degs)range (m) Striking Velocity (m/s) Angle of Fall T in F Wh / Kcna class A Wh / Kcna Class A
2 -----------4572 --- -----758-----------------------2.2-----------5.7-------- 863.6 / 990------1092.2 -- --
4 ------------9144---------700-----------------------4.72---------12.00-------787.4 / 876.3----965.2 -- --
5------------1371----------641-----------------------5.0----------18.80 -------685.8 / 762------ 863.6 -- --
8-----------18288----------586-----------------------8.4----------26.30-------609.6 / 685.8----762 -- --
11----------22860---------534----------------------12.54---------34.50-------533.4 / 584.2----609.6 -- --
14----------27432---------484----------------------17.58---------43.40-------431.8 / 508-------533.4 -- --
19----------32004---------437----------------------23.55---------53.40------355.6 / 406.4------457.2 -- --
22----------36576---------394----------------------34.44---------64.40------254.0 / 304.8------355.5--------154.0 / 154.0 ---101.6
27----------41148---------352----------------------38.00---------76.60------254.0 / 177.8------254---------- 152.4 / 177.8----190.5
35----------47500---------309----------------------58.4-----------96.00-----101.6 / 101.6------127
shell weight 4850lb 2200kg
M.V. =820 m/s


The figures represent Max armour PENETRATION of viable shell; complete penetration ; Not the minimum resistance figure .
Although class B is not simulated, other statements indicate that Class b armour failed when used as side armour as it cracked due to been too brittle. According to ANY source, brittle armour was, and still is, considered inferior in performance.I have unfortunately seen a certain bias against German ships when been compared to others by this author. The Statement above ignores established industry standards used in multiple naval shipyards across the globe. The 'standard armor used in comparison test was Kc armour made by Krupp.

The comparison stats 100mm Kcna = 80mm Wh = 60mm Ww. check out the stats on this site if you like.

I hate ship class comparisons that exist because they uniformly fail to 'standardize' each class of ships armour before any comparison is carried out.Nor do they
consider 'when' the ship was designed. For any comparisons between the Bismarck and Iowa is pointless as the Bismarck was not designed with the Iowa in mind. North Carolina comparison would be closer when done with the h39 class.

At to the last passage it just proves that a rocket scientist should stick playing with what he knows, rocketss; He knows absolute jack about armoured warship design. Experts; ex=has been; spert= drip under pressure, god saves from them!
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by alecsandros »

sineatimorar wrote: Nor any comparisons between the Bismarck and Iowa is pointless as the Bismarck was not designed with the Iowa in mind. North Carolina comparison would be closer when done with the h39 class.

At to the last passage it just proves that a rocket scientist should stick playing with what he knows, rocketss; He knows absolute jack about armoured warship design. Experts; ex=has been; spert= drip under pressure, god saves from them!
... Whotan has 23-25% elasticity, not 18%.

As for comparing Iowa and Bismarck, I wouldn't be so harsh.
Bismarck evolved from a 1934-1935 design, and was comissioned in Aug 1940.
Iowa evolved from the South Dakota design, which dated to circa 1936-37, and was finally comissioned in fev-1943.

So there are only 2-3 years in between them...

==

In terms of overall protection, and especialy protection from battleship gunfire attacking vertical surfaces, the Bismarck was simply better.
In terms of accuracy of main artillery, rate of fire and consistency of salvo firing, the Bismarck is , again, simply better.

Yet in terms of size, number, caliber of main artillery, and potential damage a single shell could deliver, the Iowa is , obviously, above Bismarck.

With radars, and fire control systems being comparable in overall effectiveness, I'd say this confrontation would be decided by the first crippling hit either side would obtain...
sineatimorar
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:42 pm

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by sineatimorar »

At last comment that starts to make sense. Some point for and against. My work on immune zones indicate the Bismarck would have to close to 20,000 meters to damage side armour of Iowa class, if sea conditions did not come into play the speed advantage of the Iowa would make this hard. Conversely the Bismarck's ability to obtain a saddle in the first salvo would mean if battle was accepted by Iowa and then critical damage to radar and buoyancy would occur without the need to penetrate any armour what so ever. This been due to the internal armoured raft not being of cerficant volume to keep the ship afloat. So yes it would be down to which would inflict damage to the other enough to disable the others fighting ability.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by alecsandros »

sineatimorar wrote:At last comment that starts to make sense. Some point for and against. My work on immune zones indicate the Bismarck would have to close to 20,000 meters to damage side armour of Iowa class,
... It would depend greatly on US class A armor quality and total obliquity of the attacking shell.

As you probably know, there are arguments to suggest US 1930s class A armor was 25% less resistant to perforation of BB caliber shells than contemporary British armor. And, with contemporary British armor being about equal to German armor, this may imply a significant reduction in effective protection.

My impression is that class A armor wasn't that bad, but came , maybe , within ~ 10% of British contemporary quality.

Thus, the 307mm main belt would be similar to 276mm of British main belt.

Assuming the 2 ships on perfect parallel courses, and shells striking with 0* lateral obliquty, the 38cm German shell could perforate that belt (inclined at 19*) all the way to 25km with the shell in "grenz" condition, and to about 23km with the shell in "heil" condition.

[the effects of the outer 38mm STS plate on Iowa's hull would be negligible - as it was to thin to decap or to activate the fuze of the shell, or to cause any yaw. Also, the 25mm STS backing of the 307mm main belt was negligible in importance to oveerall armor protection]

===
However, if the lateral obliquity of the shell would be ~ 30*, the compounded impact angle would be greater than 50*, and the penetration of the 307mm belt in heil condition would occur at probably 20km.

P.S.: if, however, the class A armor was indeed 25% less resistant, then there would be no practical immune zone for Iowa ...
sineatimorar
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:42 pm

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by sineatimorar »

A point about the American all or nothing principle which is often over looked is the acceptance of damage to any part of the hull not armoured. This includes the area immediately outside the main armour belt which includes the outer torpedo protection system. A shell shattered on the armour would direct shrapnel into the t.p.s. , a shell deflected by the armour would be deflected downwards into the t.p.s. Either type, as shown in damage reports of the south Dakota( same system) so penetration of armour is not required to threaten primary buoyancy of this hull design. I have not even mentioned any shock damage the armour may receive. On the other side of the engagement is the knowledge that the Bismarck's side armour was not deep enough so the design was vulnerable to sub surface hits, the advantage of her design was you HAD to damage the armour first before that hit had a chance to damage the internal equipment. So rapping up Iowa would expect damage to occur no matter where hit on the hull while the Bismarck was only vulnerable to damage when hit in particular areas. As we all should know both designs come from a series of compromises that result in limitations in performance in battle, it just how quick each set of limitations results in a disabled gun platform.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by alecsandros »

sineatimorar wrote:As we all should know both designs come from a series of compromises that result in limitations in performance in battle, it just how quick each set of limitations results in a disabled gun platform.
Indeed.

In this confrontation, I guess Bismarck's machinery would be vulnerable at 25km and beyond to perforation of 50+80mm armored decks. Magazines would be vulnerable from 27km and beyond. Turrets would be vulnerable at any range, as penetration was not required for taking out one. Con tower vulnerable at ranges up to 24km.
Penetration through the vertical protection was not possible for projectiles in effective condition.
However, penetrations below the armor belt were possible, and given the fact that the belt only extended 2 meters below the waterline...

Iowa's machinery would be vuilnerable at ranges 0-25km, because of the thin and under-quality main belt. Main Powder magazines were to low inside the ship to be hit directly by a 38cm shell. However, SECONDARY magazines would be directly vulnerable to 38cm gunfire.
Turrets suffered from being armored with Class B (homogenous armor), AND having a 42* angle of the face plate, which greatly improved chances of perforation at long range. The 430mm thick front plates would probably be equivalent to 365mm class A armor, which in turn would be equal to 330mm German KC n/A. WIth the 57mm backing, this would , perhaps, be equivalent to 340-350mm German fH armor. Thus , just as in the case of Bismarck, there would be no real immune zone of Iowa's turret face plates to damage from German 38cm gunfire.
Con tower would probably be vulnerable from 0 - 22km.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Bismarck and contemporaries: horizontal protection

Post by alecsandros »

I ran some numbers the last few days, concerning the horizontal protection of post-1930s battleships.

Most information comes from secondary sources, so take it with a grain o salt...
Backing materials were NOT included in the calculation of armor.

It can be seen easily that Veneto had extremely weak outboard protection above magazines (so the hits of Fritz X are easy to explain)...

Note: ALL guns used on post-1930s battleships, except the US 16"/L45 gun firing the 2700pds super-heavy shell, had horizontal armor perforation of 124mm or less at ranges of 27km or less (maximum realistic range for USN, RN and KGM)
Attachments
Effective thickness post 1930 battleships
Effective thickness post 1930 battleships
prot oriz pt forum.PNG (32.59 KiB) Viewed 2403 times
sineatimorar
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:42 pm

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by sineatimorar »

A couple of points on various posts. 2-3years difference in design dates may not seem to be that great of difference at first glance. Except in reality it can be quite a remarkable difference when a designer comes up with a unexpected advance in design. In the case of the Bismarck class there was a number complex advances made to ship control (push button steering ). Weldable armour and exstensive welding of hull itself. A high level of automation of engine control. Highly accurate gunnery control including as far as I found, the only electronic muzzle velocity reference system fitted. Refer to the baron's book and photo of Anton turret, he makes reference to devices attached to the muzzles of main battery.
As to American armour quality. There is plenty of references to the variation in manufacturing between the three main armour companies. Special point should be noted that in the reactivation in the 1980's of the USS Missouri, the pre-reactivation report clearly notes the De- lamination of the backing material of the main armour had occurred over a number of areas and where visible to be 'filled' in for cosmetic fix only. Further to this the author note no great surprise as armour from the particular manufacturer was known to de-laminate on occasions during WW2. If you read the report into the turret explosion on board the Iowa, and you do a damage assessment on the flash over protection of the turret assembly, it is clearly a question if the safety design features of this design were successful in any way. A point I might add is neither the navy, or congress investigations seem to want to consider this point. No 20th centry American battleship design ever faced combat before WW2 so maybe some of the lessons of Jutland may never been tested by them.
The reason I do not consider the comparison entirely far is due to the fact that AT THE TIME of design of the Bismarck the 2700 lb super heavyweight 16inch shell DID NOT EXIST and as a result shell hits from this weight of shell could not have been factored into the design. The upper cathedral armour is vulnerable to penetrating hits to the upper part of the hull that would result in heavy loss of support personal of the crew in combat situations. Mind you the Bismarck was no way alone in this factor as most designs did not attach much to crew survival outside the armoured regions
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by alecsandros »

...
A few points:

The table concerns horizontal protection only.

American Special Treatment Steel was a very good armor material, for it's class.

Indeed, nobody anticipated the advent of the 2700pds 16" super-heavy shell. But, as you can see, there were very few designs which could resist (in theory) the attack of such a shell, at ranges > 24km. So Bismarck is not the only one with this vulnerability.

It's interesting to see how the German H-39 project drastically increased horizontal protection at the expense of vertical protection...
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 »

A 16" gun with 2700 pound shell seems about ideal, for a battleship gun. Bigger is better.
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 »

yellowtail3 wrote:A 16" gun with 2700 pound shell seems about ideal, for a battleship gun. Bigger is better.
Indeed,
the Germans were planning the H battleships equipped also with 16" guns; the British Lions would have carried 16" guns; French Alsace class would also yield this weapon...
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 »

Yes, but would the 16 inch be that much better than 15 inch for the Germans? The Japanese for example had 18 inch guns
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by alecsandros »

RF wrote:Yes, but would the 16 inch be that much better than 15 inch for the Germans? The Japanese for example had 18 inch guns
IT depends what you want.

For rate of fire, the 15" was almost certainly better.

For perforation of armor pllate, the difference between the German 15"/L52 and 16"/L52 was around 4-5% in favor of the larger gun.

BUT, for expected damage inside the target, the 16" shell would be more devastating, as it was larger and carried more explosive charge...
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries

Post by Dave Saxton »

RF wrote:Yes, but would the 16 inch be that much better than 15 inch for the Germans? The Japanese for example had 18 inch guns

The differences are more to do with battle range considerations. The larger projectile retains more velocity and therefore flatter trajectories to greater ranges. This means it strikes vertical armour at long range with greater striking velocity and at more favorable striking angles than the smaller projectile. However, its effectiveness against horizontal armour is delayed to greater battle ranges. Using the same penetration model for comparison:

........................16"/52............................15"/52
@15km vertical......430mm...........................430mm
@ 20km vertical.....393mm...........................387mm
@30km................290mm...........................280mm
@35km................240mm...........................227mm
@ 25km deck.........98mm............................100mm
@30km deck..........123mm...........................130mm
@35km deck..........200mm...........................200mm

If your fighting at 30km or less choose the 15" weapon. If your fighting at 35km choose the 16" weapon.

Hoyer stated the most important aspect against belt armour was striking velocity rather than projectile size. Against deck armour it was the shape of the projectile's head (under the cap-not the cap) rather than projectile size.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
Post Reply