Bismarck construction flaws

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 construction flaws

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

yellowtail:
Exception... I think the South Dakotas were somewhat better ships, if we're measuring by the pound (or kilo) and they were a little smaller. Not a a great diff, but enough to make that exception... a notable exception. Otherwise.. when it comes to warships, guns, horsepower, and bank accounts... bigger is generally better. Most of the time.
You remind me so much to lwd and his ridiculous stances, really. Only that he knew a lot better what he was talking about than you. If a guy like Lutscha writes what he did here you just shut up and listen.

Of course 4 x 2 was better than 3 x 3: pick up the Raven and Roberts book on British battleships and the full lenght explanation is right there and has been there for decades. What else? Let's bring up the decaping deck of Bismarck's class that makes the Iowa and South Dakota classes a joke. Please!

Good night.
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 construction flaws

Post by yellowtail3 »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:yellowtail:
Exception... I think the South Dakotas were somewhat better ships, if we're measuring by the pound (or kilo) and they were a little smaller. Not a a great diff, but enough to make that exception... a notable exception. Otherwise.. when it comes to warships, guns, horsepower, and bank accounts... bigger is generally better. Most of the time.
You remind me so much to lwd and his ridiculous stances, really. Only that he knew a lot better what he was talking about than you.
I don't think I know the personalities here well enough to make a judgement as to what you mean, but that's not a very nice response to a reasonable & polite post answering another poster's direct question.
If a guy like Lutscha writes what he did here you just shut up and listen.
No, Karl, I do not just 'shut up and listen'. Is your conscience violated, or something? Are you the board owner/moderator/censor? Do you mean to establish your... authority, here?
Of course 4 x 2 was better than 3 x 3:
I've heard that position/opinion before, but I do not believe it to accurate. You're welcome to your opinion on that arcane matter.
What else? Let's bring up the decaping deck of Bismarck's class
Go ahead & share you opinion on that subject, if you'd like.
..that makes the Iowa and South Dakota classes a joke. Please!
a joke? (shrug)... here I was thinking they were expensive, capable ships. Pretty big ships, too. Come to America sometime and visit a couple of them. We've got Alabama, we've got Massachusetts, and then there's the very nicely maintained North Carolina. Further back, we've also got Texas. Come visit sometime, and walk the decks of a joke.
Shift Colors... underway.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Go ahead & share you opinion on that subject, if you'd like.
There are already lenghty and very well supported posts, from me and others, refering to that. That's the problem with this forum: for a long time and doing a lot of research several facts were presented and defended and some just like to see the other way and ignore. It will take you a couple minutes find them. I will not post on them anymore, I am beyond that anyway.
here I was thinking they were expensive, capable ships.
Capable, how? The only thing an Iowa has sunk in their long history is a trawler at Truk and the spaceship in the movie Battleship.
Come to America sometime and visit a couple of them. We've got Alabama, we've got Massachusetts, and then there's the very nicely maintained North Carolina. Further back, we've also got Texas. Come visit sometime, and walk the decks of a joke.
I have visit the New Jersey and the Massachussets. Not impressed, big fellows. You want to impress me? Build a time machine and let's go to Bismarck, Warspite or Yamato. Then I will be impressed. I am not keen to drive a Ford Pinto when I can drive a Porsche.

Good night fanboy.
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 construction flaws

Post by yellowtail3 »

Fanboy? I'm not trying to impress you, Karl, and I don't know how to answer that 'time machines' crack - have you been drinking?
Shift Colors... underway.
Lutscha
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by Lutscha »

Calm down a bit, Karl, even if someone like Dave, Thorsten or Marc posts something one should not shut up, but definitely one should listen. ;)

Besides, I am no expert at all.

Just be happy, that people have started, thanks to the contributers mentioned above, to reevaluate BS from mediocre to a very good design.

If we compare BS with SoDak, we have 3,7k tons standard displacement difference. BS is better armoured and IIRC what Dave said her decks are safe out to about 27-28km, belt and sloped deck is effectively impenetrable at reasonable ranges, which give BS a huge IZ. SoDaks "decapping plate" is inefficient against the German type 2 cap, making the belt vulnerable. SoDak's decks are rather safe against BS's shells

Turrets on both sides are not safe against one another at normal ranges.

SoDak is much slower and has a much larger range at slow speeds at higher cruising speeds (e. g. 19 knots) BS is better though her turbines are not very efficient in general, which is imo the only thing which is left for criticism along her 13cm turret roofs and the 18cm plate on the turret front (above the 36cm face).

SoDak has more firepower (against decks and imo in general) but is inferior in everything else escept maximum range at slow speeds.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by alecsandros »

Lutscha wrote:
If we compare BS with SoDak, we have 3,7k tons standard displacement difference.
Hi Lutscha,

I think the difference is even smaller if we eliminate the liquids from the SPS of Bismarck.

As for IZ, things are much more complicated.
yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by yellowtail3 »

Lutscha wrote:Just be happy, that people have started, thanks to the contributers mentioned above, to reevaluate BS from mediocre to a very good design.
(shrug) I think it was a pretty capable ship. I don't think that there's all that much diff between WW2 battleships as some folks thing. None of them were guaranteed a win against another. If they're to be evaluated against each other only, that leaves out 90% of their likely employment.
BS is better armoured and IIRC what Dave said her decks are safe out to about 27-28km, belt and sloped deck is effectively impenetrable at reasonable ranges, which give BS a huge IZ.
I personally think the whole 'immunity zone' concept is a little misleading, looking back.. being within that "IZ" could still see one reduced to a wreck.
Turrets on both sides are not safe against one another at normal ranges.
Don't know a great deal about this, but I do know that all the USN battleships had very, very well protected turrets.
SoDak is much slower and has a much larger range at slow speeds at higher cruising speeds (e. g. 19 knots) BS is better though her turbines are not very efficient in general, which is imo the only thing which is left for criticism along her 13cm turret roofs and the 18cm plate on the turret front (above the 36cm face).
Bismarck was a fast, capable, good-looking ship. I'd quibble with SoDaks being 'much slower' - we're talking two knots, roughly? - but there you go. Making a comparison, I'd say the South Dakotas (and all the USN battleships) had a pretty good secondary/AA battery.
Some folks get all wound up Bismarck doesn't get crowned 'best'. I hope you're feeling better this morning, Karl...
Last edited by yellowtail3 on Fri May 25, 2012 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Shift Colors... underway.
yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by yellowtail3 »

Karl, you mentioned that the Iowa had only sunk a trawler. To what do you attribute that? Was she... too slow to catch anything else? Were her guns insufficiently powerful to sink anything else? What?
Shift Colors... underway.
Lutscha
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by Lutscha »

For the turrets of US ships look here: viewtopic.php?t=4170&p=47923

I also had the impression that they had very good protected turrets, but that was not the case.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by alecsandros »

Lutscha wrote:For the turrets of US ships look here: viewtopic.php?t=4170&p=47923

I also had the impression that they had very good protected turrets, but that was not the case.
South Dakota and Iowa had a differnetn turret armor protection than Washington.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Lutscha,

You are right that I need to slow down a bit and forgive my lack of patience (it a virtue that I do not have in abundance). Let me explain the following: when I got into this forum, many years ago, I concieved Bismarck as the epitome of naval weapondry for the very wrong reasons. During those early days the posts of many members of this forum, the combinedfleet site and some lectures show me different and I assumed the "common AoN knowledge" was correct. Because of my interest I started to read a lot of interesting material starting by Friedman on Battleship Design, the USN battleship books, the Raven and Roberts and started to see that this "common knowledge" had some flaws in it's logic and perception of concepts and events. To that I have to acknowledge that exchange of criteria with some brilliant people from this forum on topics like Radar Directed Fire Control & armor so that the flood of information was clear: the events that were originated in the 1921 Naval Treaty and the way countries adapt to it were crucial in the way they designed and built their capital ships. Whilst the US and GB abided the treaty the Germans and Japanese simply ignored it which is why their approach to capital ship design was so different and practical elements performed better with the Axis than with the Allies.
Many tons of words have been written on these particular topics so to come here, again, and display them is just reiteration for which I do not have the time or patience. By now there is little material that has not been addressed in this forum and little to discover and discuss. The fact is that in this kind of things there is no "personal" opinion but just the acceptance or challenge of evidence, hard facts.
I leave you now with this being happy, indeed, that many inteligent and more educated people than me, like you, have come to some conclusions that have performed a change in your academic criteria on this.

Regards,

Karl Heidenreich
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 construction flaws

Post by RF »

ede144 wrote:
RF wrote:Yes - but think of the extra tonnage.

But if that doesn't matter - how about true symmetry - 4 quad turrets of 16 inch?
I wonder how the super structure would look like. With the blast of a full salvo?
Salvo fire could be staggered by individual turret.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
ede144
Member
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by ede144 »

@RF
Great words easy spoken :-)
To put some figures on it:
BS fired 8 guns divided in 4 turrets up to 3 times per gun per minute. This usually divided in 2 turret groups. So have every 20 seconds a salvo of 4. IF you double this, than you can either fire a group of 4 every 10 secon, which gives you trouble in spotting it. OR YOU fire salvos of 8 guns which gives you 4 times the energy whiich hammer om the ship and it's structure. I asume there have been limits what could be reasonably done.
Regards
Ede
yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by yellowtail3 »

light-weight main battery guns with modest throw weight - and an overweight, slow-firing secondary battery - these were certainly shortcomings of the Bismarck, relative to some of her contemporaries. Compared to European ships, she was mid-pack - compared to American and Japanese designs, she was a bit undergunned.

Nice looking, though, and a great story!
Shift Colors... underway.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by alecsandros »

What seems interesting is that ALL European batleships, of the 30s-40s had 15" guns, KGV being the exception to the rule.
They concentrated 8-9 main guns (again KGV being the exception), they all had 30kts+ speed, and heavy vertical armor
(Veneto - 70+10mm outer plates + 280+10mm inner plates; Richelieu 330mm+15mm outer plates + 50mm inner plate [scarp], Bismarck 320mm outer plate + 110mm inner [scarp]; KGV 374mm+10mm outer plates; Vanguard 350mm+15mm outer plate).

Bismarck is thus no exception.

What makes her special is
- the protected waterline length (72%),
- heavies con tower protection (35cm + wood backing),
- vital systems redundancy (3 separate high-points from which main fire control could be directed; 2 fully functional plotting rooms beneath the panzer deck, 4 main turrets, etc)
- fire control and gunnery system - with functional RPC since 1941, with 3 shots/minute/gun, and 100m patterns for 4-gun salvos at 20km, integrated radar, etc.
- largest array of secondary guns. 12 x 15cm + 16x10.5cm [the heavy AA guns could be used also for surface combat, but with limited value. For example - Prinz Eugen employed similar weapons against Prince of Wales during Denmark Strait]
- largest range of all European battleships, comparable only to Vanguard.
Post Reply