Bismarck construction flaws

[tommy303]

Prinz Eugen's stern was seriously damaged and partially collapsed, but was not blown off. It was later cut off in Norway and two jury rudders were manufactured and installed, which is what you see in the picture. This was sufficient to allow the ship to get to Germany for repairs.

In Bismarck's case, the idea of a jury rudder was considered, but the extremely heavy seas prevented the implementation of such a plan. As Steve said, the comment from Lindemann was the result of exhaustion and frustration setting in after many hours trying to regain control of the ship.

[hammy]

Yes , I suppose he had exhausted all the options by then . Time to get the rum out . Which I think they did , didnt they , opened the canteen stores and said "help yourself" ?

Fascinating subject , Damage Control and trying to save or temporarily patch up big ship casualties . There was a photo of one of the big American cruisers with the bows blown off by a long lance torpedo , and they'd built a cross bulkhead of horizontal palm logs to take the seas and relieve the steel one behind of the whole stress . And have you seen the photos of the J class destroyer with both the bows AND the stern off , so theres almost nothing left exept the boiler rooms and engine rooms , and its still afloat on an even keel !I think the remnant was actually towed back in ( not far - this was in the North Sea in 1939 when there had been a fracas during some minelaying ) and the ship was rebuilt again .

[RF]

Yes , I suppose he had exhausted all the options by then . Time to get the rum out . Which I think they did , didnt they , opened the canteen stores and said "help yourself" ?

Er, not quite. The KM never had a rum ration, the move was done to raise morale for the coming final battle. And it was ''help yourself'' within reason.

Regarding the rudder damage to Bismarck, it should be pointed out that Lutjens and Lindemann were not operating in isolation but had the Admiral's staff as well as Bismarck's other senior officers present. Now none of these survived - so we don't really know what was being planned. I presume as professional naval officers something was being planned to retreive the position.

[IronDuke]

I expect most here know this...

ARMOR PROTECTION OF THE BATTLESHIP KM BISMARCK©
BY NATHAN OKUN

http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm

[Bgile]

I expect most here know this...

ARMOR PROTECTION OF THE BATTLESHIP KM BISMARCK©
BY NATHAN OKUN

http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm

Yes, but some of the posters here have argued that the thin upper deck was actually a mark of genius and that it causes induced yaw which will flip a heavy shell sideways so it can't penetrate the main armor deck. While this didn't happen in the tests on Baden, Bismarck has a thicker upper deck and might have a greater distance between the two layers of armor. I don't agree that the induced yaw would have the effect some believe, but I don't think it's disputable that there would be some, and Nathan didn't try to account for that. Personally, I think the the downward deflection of penetrating shells would at least compensate for the induced yaw, but as many here are quick to point out this is all theory and some would say not relevant because it wasn't demonstrated in actual combat.

[alecsandros]

Yes, but some of the posters here have argued that the thin upper deck was actually a mark of genius and that it causes induced yaw which will flip a heavy shell sideways so it can't penetrate the main armor deck. While this didn't happen in the tests on Baden

To much to argue.
To keep it simple:

1) Baden's decks were made of standard homogenous armor. Bismarck's upper deck was Whotan hart, with considerable more tensile strength and corresponding less %EL than the armor from Baden.
2) There are still to many unknowns concerning plate quality (especialy for Italian and French designs) to conclusively say one ship was better armored than another. On the contrary, Nathan's analysis is purely a theoretical one, with many, many of his arguments being refuted by empirical trials or events.

[Bgile]

Yes, but some of the posters here have argued that the thin upper deck was actually a mark of genius and that it causes induced yaw which will flip a heavy shell sideways so it can't penetrate the main armor deck. While this didn't happen in the tests on Baden

To much to argue.
To keep it simple:

1) Baden's decks were made of standard homogenous armor. Bismarck's upper deck was Whotan hart, with considerable more tensile strength and corresponding less %EL than the armor from Baden.
2) There are still to many unknowns concerning plate quality (especialy for Italian and French designs) to conclusively say one ship was better armored than another. On the contrary, Nathan's analysis is purely a theoretical one, with many, many of his arguments being refuted by empirical trials or events.

One thing that is certain is if something happens to a non-German ship, the argument will always be that German armor must be better so a German ship would not suffer from the same sort of problem. That is a given.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile:

One thing that is certain is if something happens to a non-German ship, the argument will always be that German armor must be better so a German ship would not suffer from the same sort of problem. That is a given.

On the contrary, this is precisely what the USN fans do when a technical discussion takes place and the argument will always be that South Dakota, North Carolina or super Iowa mus be better so that them would not suffer from the same sort (or any kind) of problem. That is what is given.

[Herr Nilsson]

Aside from your little private war.


http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm
Seriously now, where is a real construction flaw?

[Bgile]

Aside from your little private war.


http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm
Seriously now, where is a real construction flaw?

As I understand the meaning of that term, Okun doesn't point out any. He is somewhat critical of Bismarck's deck armor scheme, but that isn't really a construction flaw; it's just a different design philosophy.

[Bgile]

Bgile:

One thing that is certain is if something happens to a non-German ship, the argument will always be that German armor must be better so a German ship would not suffer from the same sort of problem. That is a given.

On the contrary, this is precisely what the USN fans do when a technical discussion takes place and the argument will always be that South Dakota, North Carolina or super Iowa mus be better so that them would not suffer from the same sort (or any kind) of problem. That is what is given.

I wonder who you are referring to. I consider Bismarck to be the most powerful battleship in existence at the time of the Denmark strait battle. I think she is more powerful than North Carolina or South Dakota, and in some ways more powerful than Iowa. This doesn't keep me from pointing out her weaknesses, as I also have done for the US ships. The difference between us (in addition to your personal attacks on lwd and myself) is that you don't seem to think Bismarck has any weaknesses at all. I also point out that the US ships best chance to defeat her was at long range. Originally I thought the US ships had better radar, but Dave has gone a long way toward disproving that. I differ from most other posters here in that I believe in the results of Bill Juren's study. Most other posters seem to think that study is irrelevant without even reading it.

[alecsandros]

One thing that is certain is if something happens to a non-German ship, the argument will always be that German armor must be better so a German ship would not suffer from the same sort of problem. That is a given.

I just said there are to many unknowns...

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile:

I wonder who you are referring to. I consider Bismarck to be the most powerful battleship in existence at the time of the Denmark strait battle. I think she is more powerful than North Carolina or South Dakota, and in some ways more powerful than Iowa.

This is the first time the statement is done this way. From previous threads and posts this does not translate but the contrary. However, if this is your criteria then there is nothing we have to argue about.

This doesn't keep me from pointing out her weaknesses, as I also have done for the US ships. The difference between us (in addition to your personal attacks on lwd and myself) is that you don't seem to think Bismarck has any weaknesses at all.

On the contrary I even rate her beneath Iowa and the two Treary BBs in the Battleship Top Ten. I must add that I have never regarded her AA as something to praise about, neither. However I rated her more now after learning all these issues of her IZ and the long range gunnery.

I also point out that the US ships best chance to defeat her was at long range. Originally I thought the US ships had better radar, but Dave has gone a long way toward disproving that.

Yes, I thought that way until a couple of years ago when evidence came that there was no such a great advantage, at least until 1945. However Bismarck is imune to that argument because she was sunk in 1941 and it is Tirpitz the one that could have gone in an hypothetical combat against the Treaty BBs or Iowa.

I don't have but great respect for Mr. Jurens.

[Dave Saxton]

The typical amount of trajectory change toward the normal (it's not always toward the normal) when penetrating Wh was known. Typically if the plate thickness was 50% the diameter of the shell the trajectory shift was 4*. 50mm Wh is not thick enough that it will cause any significant trajectory shift toward the normal with battleship caliber shells.

The amount of yaw is dependent on the rate of precession and the distance between the upper and main armour. Yaw causes the shell to require more velocity to penetrate armour than it would require if it was not yawed. Therefore, if the penetrating shell has sufficent energy to penetrate 80mm un-yawed it will not have enough energy left over to penetrate 80mm if it is yawed, as an example.

Tests of spaced armour varied widely, with many arrays providing an lesser effective thickness than sum of the plates, some providing effective thickness equal to the sum of the plates, and some providing effective thickness exceeding the sum thickness of the plates. There is no consistent rule that a spaced array effective thickness will be ~75% the sum thickness, as is often implied.

The Germans had discovered how to design a spaced array that could provide an effective thickness equal to or exceeding the sum thickness. By using a spaced array deck protection scheme that meant certain requirements, they were not really trading off effective thickness compared to a single plate system of equal armour thickness. Therefore, they could use a spaced array also allowing the employment of the superior scarp triangle belt protection system. Other potential advantages of properly engineered spaced armour, such as probably destroying or minimizing the effectiveness of projectiles, through fuzing and de-capping effects, could be brought into play as well.

[Thorsten Wahl]

To keep it simple:

1) Baden's decks were made of standard homogenous armor. Bismarck's upper deck was Wotan hart, with considerable more tensile strength and corresponding less %EL than the armor from Baden.

1) According the Unterlagen zur Bestimmung Hauptkampfentfernung this statement is wrong
"Despite the significantly higher (tensile)strength and thus increased resistance to the penetration of projectiles, splinters, etc., the new qualities(Wh(nA)Ww(nA)) are surpassing the old (ww1) high ductile low nickel steel also in ductility"

The 18% elongation is a minimum value of acceptance as well as 80kg/mm2 for Wotan hart.

spaced array deck

Not only the deck is protected by a spaced array the spaced array system was also used to protect the bow and stern bulkheads and the rudder