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

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Marcelo Malara:
Hi all

IMO Nelson and Rodney were underpowered by the time they were designed. QE class BB had 75000 hp for 25 kt in 1915. Even the R class had 40000 hp for 23 kt. Nelson had 45000 hp for 23 kt in a ship built in 1927. This fact grossly underestimated the technologies that were about to come and made them slow for WWII standards.
Hi Marcelo!:

Good to hear from you, sincerely! This forum had missed your comments for a long time.
And thanks for your info about the Rodney. It helps to clarify things in this thread.

Very best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Post by paulcadogan »

Karl! Wow!

Please let me add my commendations for the amount of work you've put into this thread in such a short time! :clap: :clap:

It's great to see such evaluations one after the other - positives and negatives.

I certainly support your overall point of view - although you know I gotta take one little issue with your original statement about Bismarck "almost" sinking PoW.....come on!!! :negative: She didn't even come close!!! :wink: She left that for the Japanese!

I don't think anyone ever built the "perfect" battleship. Even the Iowas "only" had a 12-inch belt. In any naval action there are so many factors that influence the outcome - the actual qualities of the ships are just a small part, along with efficiency, tactics and a great deal of luck - who hits first and the placing of those hits.

As I've said before, Bismarck's performance made her a legend (and made the British pay so much attention to Tirpitz)and no design deficiencies can take that away!!

And by the way - I just realized our "signatures" are closely "related"!! I wonder if you've watched "Sink the Bismarck" as many times as me :shock: ....

Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
Lutscha
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Lutscha »

Edit: I meant 2 belt hits. :wink:

The belt was not hit more times because it was submerged through progressive flooding and by the fact that BS was shot at very close ranges which translated in very flat trajectories making belts hits all but impossible.

Over at BS-DK Bill Jurens wrote:

The reason there are only two points of damage on the main belt is because there were only two HITS on the main belt. There were no rejections, so far as I can see, of major caliber shells.

There is no way to tell the caliber of these hits, or from what range they were fired.

Bill Jurens.

http://bismarck-class-forum.dk/thread.php?threadid=2240

This is the reason why BS was not sunk through the gunfire, she did not receive (much) flodding through the shell hits. Penetrating the belt was certain at these ranges, though the effect called the shatter gap (shells breaking up at too close ranges, again from Bill Jurens), might have interfered with some penetrations.
A greater range would have meant fewer hits but more under or through the belt which would have increased flooding considerably. All hits just rearranged the wreckage of BS' superstructure, turrets etc. but contributed little to her sinking.

Maybe Bill Jurens might add more to this.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Lutsha:
... Edit: I meant 2 belt hits....

...The reason there are only two points of damage on the main belt is because there were only two HITS on the main belt. There were no rejections, so far as I can see, of major caliber shells...

...There is no way to tell the caliber of these hits, or from what range they were fired...
I must say that´s likely, Lutscha, and I admit that you could probably be right. But when watching the Cameron documentary we can see a lot of shell splashes on the main belt and it´s very hard to believe that the British were unable to hit it more than 2 times with each of heavy caliber guns. At least I don´t believe it. From 2,800 shells fired (and 700 of them heavy caliber) it´s almost imposible that Nelson can only got two direct hits at BS main belt and that KGV did the same.
That issue, as I understand it, is that Nelson and KGV scored many hits on the armour belt and only 2 x 16" and 2 x 14" got thru.
I´ll like to someone to come up with info about this because we are not going to advance any further from this point.

Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

paulcadogan:
Karl! Wow!

Please let me add my commendations for the amount of work you've put into this thread in such a short time!

It's great to see such evaluations one after the other - positives and negatives.

I certainly support your overall point of view - although you know I gotta take one little issue with your original statement about Bismarck "almost" sinking PoW.....come on!!! She didn't even come close!!! She left that for the Japanese!

I don't think anyone ever built the "perfect" battleship. Even the Iowas "only" had a 12-inch belt. In any naval action there are so many factors that influence the outcome - the actual qualities of the ships are just a small part, along with efficiency, tactics and a great deal of luck - who hits first and the placing of those hits.

As I've said before, Bismarck's performance made her a legend (and made the British pay so much attention to Tirpitz)and no design deficiencies can take that away!!

And by the way - I just realized our "signatures" are closely "related"!! I wonder if you've watched "Sink the Bismarck" as many times as me ....

Paul
Hi Paul!
Well, I didn´t did any research yesterday but from some two weeks prior, not to answer any post but because I was very curious about the design history of the Treaty and Post Treat BBs.
About PoW at DS... well, our friend iankw and I have been in an argument about it for a year. We can touch that sometime later, don´t you think?
And... yes, "Sink the Bismarck" is one of my favourites, wow, I love all the scenes previous to Denmarck Straits where we can see Hood. Most people will never say that Hood is one of my favorite warships. I have not only the Trumpeter 1:350 model (and of PoW too, but with camo painting) but Bruce Taylor´s book about the famous British BC.
Very best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Lutscha
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Lutscha »

Bill Jurens examined the video footage in deail and if I have to choose between his analysis or Cameron`s opinion, I go with the expert. ;)
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Lutscha:

Bill Jurens examined the video footage in deail and if I have to choose between his analysis or Cameron`s opinion, I go with the expert.
Well, that´s your right, I believe. But from now on let´s be more carefull about calling Bismarck mediocre, because we can find endless "flaws" and "design problems" in a whole lot of ships, including the sacred cows of the Iowa Class Church. As a very good friend who wrote me today about this said: In EUROPE, in MAY 1941 Bismarck was the one. After that, your call...

Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
paul mercer
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Tavistock, West Devon

Post by paul mercer »

I have to agree with Karl, Bismarck was the best ship around AT HER TIME, certainly on this side of the Atlantic. It is always easy to denigrate something with the benefit of hindsight, but she was as good as they could get bearing in mind she was designed in the 1930's.
Yes, she was outclassed eventually, but Germany, Great Britain and the USA all had plans for larger, more powerful ships.
I think the speculation on another thread about 'what if' BS had met Rodney, KG V, a 'QE' or even an 'R' in single combat is interesting, but only up to a point. Bismarck's remit was to sink merchant shipping, not to go out like some latter day Knight Errant and challenge all comers. Of course she would have had no hesitation in doing so if forced (like Denmark Strait) but unlike the British, German ships did not have the luxury of ports all over the world where she could go to repair damage. I think that like the twins before her she would use her superior speed to avoid combat as even an old 'QE' or 'R' had the potential to do serious, even if not crippling damage, (after all a 15" shell is a 15" shell no matter where it comes from!) and even the 14" from POW in a fuel tank was enough to abort the mission.
Anyway, I think she was a great ship.
iankw
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Rotherham, England

Post by iankw »

Credit where it is due Karl, your posts, and the research that went into them are impressive. Yeah we disagree about PoW, but that's simply a matter of opinion.

Marcelo - I am only going on the work of others with my opinion about Nelrod. I have had a quick scan through "Fleets of World War II", by our very own Tiornu, and cannot find a BB of the same time that is significantly faster than Nelrod. Sure some BBs were rebuilt/refitted to make them faster but not as designed. Can you please indicate any I have missed? I did also state that they were slow for WW2, so we agree on that.

regards

Ian
Lutscha
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Lutscha »

Karl, imo Bill Jurens is much more credible than James Cameron who is not an expert for naval ordnance and ballistics and afaik the level of detail of the Mearns expedition ist better. Maybe Bill can comment about the discrepancy of the reported belt hits.

Btw, you mean impacts not splashes don't you?

That aside, the Richelieu was better than BS in almost every areas. (speed, range, deck armour, turret armour and TDS) All TDS' narrowed near the ends but she had much more depth amidships. That aside, Richelieu and Jean Bart were both unfinished at that time and had severe ammunition problems, which were easy to correct but were not in May 41.
I don't think the quads or their arrangement was much of a problem, since it permitted increases in armour and other areas although a turret fore and aft would have been better. BS herself had the most inefficient turret arrangement in terms of weight.

Looking at the displacements of both ships and the fact that R beats BS in many ares leads me to the conclusion, that BS was mediocre for her weight, though their chances in a 1on1 would have been equal, though an unsolved ammunition problem would put R at a decided disadvantage.
There could have been done more with such a displacement.
The Littorios were imo very good ships, their greatest drawbacks being a very short range and very weak heavy AA. The Pugliese system appears to have worked quite well, although it was bot optimal.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Well Lutscha, as I said before, everyone is entitled to have his opinion...

Good luck.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

In order to analyse Bismarck´s contemporaries I believe it´s fair to bring some info about the North Carolinas.
Again, Chuck Hawks on "Treaty Battleships":
NORTH CAROLINA class.

The first pair of American treaty battleships were the North Carolina and Washington, laid down in 1937 and 1938 respectively. But their story started earlier, in 1935, as they were the result of a long series of design studies and compromises.

The requirement for "fast" battleships was becoming evident, forcing the USN away from the slow (23 knot) heavily armed and armored type it had traditionally preferred. The CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) expressed the view that was eventually adopted: enough speed to run down the fastest capital ships in the Pacific (the Kongo class, then rated at 26 knots). The four Kongo class battlecruisers were regarded as a particular "thorn in the side" by USN strategists in the years preceding WW II. This meant the new U.S. battleships should make a minimum of 27 knots. All subsequent U.S. battleships, except the special purpose Iowa class, would be designed to this standard. When polled, the senior officers with the Fleet favored the "battlecruiser" type (fast battleship) by a 9 to 7 margin. The senior officers in the War Plans Division favored the fast ship by a greater 5 to 1 margin.

In March of 1934, Japan had announced that she would not renew the naval treaties when they expired. As we have seen, the London Treaty of 1936, which was being negotiated as the North Carolinas were being designed, called for 14in guns and 35,000t, but had escalator clauses to allow 16in guns and 45,000t if a nonsignatory did not abide by the spirit of the treaty. Japan's noncompliance triggered these escalator clauses in time to provide 16in guns for the North Carolinas, but not equivalent armor protection. The design was by then too far advanced to allow much change in the protection scheme. In fact, the 16in guns were only possible because the design called for 12-14in guns in three quadruple turrets, and these had been designed with the same turret ring size as the triple 16in turrets BuOrd had wanted all along. BuOrd was not happy about reverting to the 14in gun for the new battleships, or with the risks inherent in developing a quadruple turret. Japanese non-compliance (also German and Italian, but that wasn't known then) allowed BuOrd to have its way and make America's treaty battleships the most powerful of the type.

The complexity and evolution of the design selection process is interesting. The following information on this topic is summarized from Norman Friedman's definitive book on the subject U.S. Battleships - An Illustrated Design History.

In all, 15 preliminary sketch designs were considered, and variations of the most promising were analyzed. Each was identified by a letter of the alphabet. The preliminary design finally chosen for further development ("K") was a 30.5kt proposal with 9-14in guns in three triple turrets, all forward of the superstructure (as in Nelson), and a 15in armor belt (immune zone 19,000-30,000 yards) on a 710ft hull. Several months passed before it was discovered that this layout did not result in the weight savings envisioned.

Sketch designs in the next step of the selection process, as the original "K" proposal was refined, eventually numbered 35! These were assigned Roman numerals. Variations in armament, armor, hull length, torpedo protection, speed, internal layout, in fact almost every specification, were explored. The first of this series were numbers I through V.

In January of 1936, Scheme IV was selected for further development. This design showed a 725ft hull on which was mounted 9-14in guns and a 12.125in belt (immune zone 21,400-30,000 yards); speed was down slightly to 30 knots. But the General Board wanted major changes, including 20-5in secondary guns (rather than the 12 carried by design IV). This resulted in three further sketch designs: IV-A, IV-B, and IV-C. None met the Board's requirements, particularly in terms of protection. By May of 1936 the General Board relented on very high speed--27 knots was perhaps adequate after all, if more armor could be worked in.

Designs numbered up to XV-E had been explored by the middle of June 1936. On June 25 the Board issued new tentative characteristics. Now they wanted a 28.5 knot ship with 11-14in guns and 16-5in secondary guns. The immune zone was to extend from 19,000 to 30,000 yards. This was a specification well balanced between speed, battery, and protection.

Preliminary Design responded with design XVI on 20 August 1936. This had a 714ft hull, 12-14in guns in three conventionally laid out quadruple turrets, an 11.2in belt sloped at 10 degrees, and a 27 knot speed. As the wrangling continued over the new battleship's design, XVI-A, XVI-B, XVI-C, and XVI-D appeared. XVI-C, in particular, was widely debated. It was 725ft long, carried 9-14in guns, a 13.6in belt, and made 30 knots. For a time this design was supported by the General Board.

In October of 1936 the characteristics of the new battleship were again revised by the General Board. Underwater protection was to be improved (tests had shown this to be necessary), the main armor belt thickened and more sharply angled, and more secondary guns worked in. Speed was allowed to decrease to 27 knots. This time the revised characteristics were signed by the Acting Secretary of the Navy, with the provision that the design allow 16in guns (in triple turrets) to be substituted for the planned 14in (in quadruple turrets) if necessary. A detailed design was then prepared which became the North Carolina class.

In March 1937 the gun caliber clause in the London Treaty was invoked, and in July 1937 BuOrd finally got the 16in guns they had campaigned for all along. 9-16in guns would be far more effective than 12-14in. And a triple turret was far less risky that the proposed quadruple turret. The North Carolina design, as planned, had been well balanced, carrying 14in guns and adequately protected against 1,500lb 14in shells. But with the adoption of the 16in gun (then firing a 2,250lb shell), the immune zone shrank to 21,000-27,700 yards over magazines, and only 23,200-26,000 yards over machinery. Note that the ship's armor had not changed, just the standard of comparison. Also note that against the U.S. 16in/2,250lb shell, Japan's 16in gun battleships, the Nagato class, had no immunity at all! In fact, by the start of the Pacific war, North Carolina and Washington carried the new super heavy 2,700lb 16in shell, against which they (and most other battleships in the world) had virtually no immune zone. This new shell made the American 16in gun nearly equal to the Japanese 18.1in gun (3,220lb shell) carried by the giant Yamato class.

The specifications of the North Carolina class (as built) were as follows:

Displacement: (Washington) 37,484t standard; 44,377t full load Dimensions: 714ft 6in wl, 728ft 9in oa x 108ft 4in x 32ft 11in full load Machinery: 4-shaft General Electric turbines, 8 Babcock & Wilson boilers, 121,000shp = 28kts. Oil 6,260t, range17,450mn @ 15kts Armor: Belt 12in-6.6in on .75in STS backing, armor deck 5.5in-5in with 1.45in weather deck and .62-.75in splinter deck, bulkheads 11in, barbettes 14.7in-16in, turrets 16in face, 7in roof, 9.8in side, 11l8in rear, CT 14.7in-16in with 7in roof Armament: 9-16in/45 (3x3), 20-5in.38 DP (10x2), 16-1.1in AA (4x4), 12-.5in light AA (12x1), 3 aircraft Complement: 1880
In appearance, North Carolina and Washington were handsome, well proportioned and well balanced ships with a flush deck and a conventional layout. Twin funnels, a graceful prow, a tall fire control tower, and a cruiser stern were recognizable features of their design. I have always regarded them as the most handsome of all U.S. battleships (see my article "Great Capital Ships, 1920 to 1990").

North Carolina was commissioned on 9 April 1941, and Washington on 15 May 1941. Severe (unforeseen) propeller vibration problems on trials at speeds from 25-27 knots caused various propeller combinations (3, 4, and 5 bladed types of various diameters) to be experimented with. The North Carolina received the nickname "Showboat" due to her many trips in and out of New York harbor. On various trials during December 1941, Washington made 28 knots at 42,100t, and 27.1 knots at 45,000t at full power.

Like all wartime battleships, the North Carolinas received increased electronics and AA battery as the war went on. By August 1945 the Washington carried 15 quadruple 40mm Bofors mounts, 1-quadruple 20mm mount, 8-twin 20mm mounts, and 63-single 20mm mounts.

The best point of the class was probably their offensive firepower. Their main battery was second to none, with a broadside weight of 24,300 pounds. They (and the similar South Dakotas) also carried the best secondary battery, the best AA battery, and the best fire control of all treaty battleships. They were extremely maneuverable, with a tactical diameter of 575 yards at 14.5 knots. They had great range and endurance, again superior to the battleships of all other nations. They were seaworthy. Their underwater protection was superior to that of the other American 3rd generation battleships.

They were later criticized for being "unbalanced" (armament vs. armor), but it must be remembered that in fact they were adequately protected. If they had been completed with 12-14in guns (3x4) as originally planned, they would have been "balanced," and no one would have complained. Substituting the triple 16in gun turret for the quadruple 14in gun turret on a one-for-one basis did not make the ships any larger or heavier; it just gave them a much more effective offensive punch. It was only the marked superiority of the American 16in gun and super heavy 2,700lb shell (compared to the gun/shell combination carried by all other nations' Treaty battleships) that made them seem "unbalanced." A useful analogy might be this: which would you rather put your money on, a heavyweight boxer with a good chin and a good punch, or one with a good chin and a great punch? In theoretical comparisons made by BuShips in December 1941, the North Carolinas fared well against either King George V or Bismarck.

Both ships served throughout the Second World War, participating in a great many campaigns in both the Atlantic and Pacific. They proved to be very satisfactory in service, and were generally regarded as superior in operation to the very cramped South Dakota class which followed.

The most significant moment of North Carolina's wartime service occurred when she was torpedoed by Japanese submarine I-15, on 15 September 1942. The torpedo hit on the left side just behind number 1 barbette (and abeam the forward magazine), and blew an 18x32 foot hole in the hull. This let in about 970t of seawater, and buckled the second and third decks. Within minutes the ship was able to make 24 knots. After the incident BuShips stated that the underwater protection system had performed much as designed and no changes were indicated. The North Carolina class underwater protection was superior to that of the subsequent South Dakota and Iowa classes (which verged on being defective due to unwise changes in the whole theory of underwater protection), although this was probably not realized at the time.

North Carolina, the famous "Showboat," was the only U.S. treaty battleship retained in active service post-war. In 1961 she was stricken from the Navy list, but preserved as a war memorial at Wilmington, North Carolina, where you can see her today.

Washington became the most successful American battleship of WW II. Her most glorious moment in the war came during the night of 13-14 November 1942, when she sank the Japanese battlecruiser Kirishima in a wild night action called the Second Battle of Guadalcanal. Kirishima and her accompanying cruisers and destroyers had just disabled the new U.S. battleship South Dakota, when Washington slipped to within 8,400 yards of Kirishima and overwhelmed her with 16in and 5in shellfire. Washington was not hit in this action, which was primarily a tribute to American radar, fire control, and the offensive firepower of the North Carolina class. It is interesting that Kirishima was one of the Kongo class battlecruisers that, back in 1935, had so markedly influenced the concept that eventually became the North Carolina class. Washington was sold for scrap in 1961.
It´s quite interesting the part where the author refers to the critics calling the North Carolinas as unbalanced (armament vs. armour) and the way he discards the falacy.

I hope you enjoy the reading.

Best regards
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1850
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Post by marcelo_malara »

Marcelo - I am only going on the work of others with my opinion about Nelrod. I have had a quick scan through "Fleets of World War II", by our very own Tiornu, and cannot find a BB of the same time that is significantly faster than Nelrod.
Nagato has similar displacement, lenght, 1 less gun (but one more turret), and with 80000 hp was capable of 26.5 kt. That is 3.5 kt faster than Nelson and entered service 6 years earlier. The RN must be ashamed that the only BB named after her most famous Admiral was such a piece of scrap.
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu »

Nagato has similar displacement, lenght, 1 less gun (but one more turret), and with 80000 hp was capable of 26.5 kt.
Nagato also had no immune zone at all against Nelson's guns. After her reconstruction, she still lagged behind Nelson in protection for the vitals, her speed had dropped to 25 knots, and she displaced 5000 tons more than Nelson.
What Nagato had over Nelson, apart from her speed, was the hull volume with ata least some armor protection. Her magazines were well protected; even the bulkheads separating the magazines from the machinery spaces was fully armored, something like 10in. Nagato's guns were also of more practical design. She might have been a better choice than Nelson, all-around, during WWII. 40,000 tons will buy you a lot of battleship.
User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Post by tommy303 »

If I recall, the Nelsons had been intended to be something rather faster and more powerful than they turned out to be upon completion. Restrictions as laid down by the Washington Treaty forced the British to build the ships within limits not originally taken into account--hence the referral to them by some wags as the Cherry Tree class (ie, cut down by Washington).

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.
Post Reply