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
Contact:

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:57 pm

lwd:

If you think that I (and for that matter anybody else) are going to get in an endless semantic, rethoric and useless discussion with your piecemeal rubbish, your are wrong. At least not me. I think very much like Phil Golin in all this. As for me in two weeks I am going to visit USS Intrepid, USS New Jersey and the Smithonian. Bye.

Very best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by lwd » Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:04 pm

Still reluctant to admit that an argument made up of flawed pieces is a flawed argument I see.

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

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:05 pm

:pray:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

ede144
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by ede144 » Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:18 pm

Lwd
I like your post, so overwhelming full of facts. Maybee a ber or two would have helped to calm down.
Regards
Ede

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by lwd » Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:20 pm

ede144 wrote:Lwd
I like your post, so overwhelming full of facts.
Which one?
Maybee a ber or two would have helped to calm down.
???

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by yellowtail3 » Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:04 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:As for me in two weeks I am going to visit USS Intrepid, USS New Jersey and the Smithonian. Bye.

Very best regards,
You posted that you were not impressed last time you visited the NJ. Have you decided to give that flawed treaty-limited ship another chance to impress you?
Shift Colors... underway.

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

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Wed Jun 20, 2012 3:03 am

You posted that you were not impressed last time you visited the NJ. Have you decided to give that flawed treaty-limited ship another chance to impress you?
The Intrepid is always interesting and is moored alongside a submarine which is also very interesting. I have visited them alone, this time I am taking my son and daughter and want to show them warships. If I could visit the Mikasa or the Aurora I would have take them (or to have the oportunity to walk the deck of Bismarck or Yamato, the two greatest ones). The NJ will have to suffice... flawed or not... at least is old...
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 construction flaws

Post by alecsandros » Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:36 am

lwd wrote:
alecsandros wrote: Remember the US had a corrosion problem with their fuses early in the war. I think recovering a shell or two after the Torch landings was how they discovered it.
Remember that 1 day before Kirishima got plastered, Jim Bean was taken out by exactly the same kind of shell fired from the same type of gun. And all shells functioned exactly as they should have had.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by lwd » Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:27 pm

alecsandros wrote:Remember that 1 day before Kirishima got plastered, Jim Bean was taken out by exactly the same kind of shell fired from the same type of gun. And all shells functioned exactly as they should have had.
Did they? Assumeing that was a snide reference to Jean Bart we have According to http://polyticks.com/bbma/shells.htm
only two shells are known to have exploded,
and http://polyticks.com/bbma/jeanbart.htm goes on to say:
... Of the five shells that hit Jean Bart,two, perhaps three, failed to explode. The two that exploded hit in the "nothing" sections of an "all or nothing" designed battleship. These two wrecked large parts of the ship, but parts that contained no vital equipment.

The two hits which definitely did not explode hit the hard armor of the primary turrets. In both cases, the fuse mechanism broke off. ...
and http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Miscarmr.htm states
was removed from service in 1941 and 1942, being replaced by the Mark 21 Base Detonating Fuze. The 0.033-second-delay Mark 21 BDF--...--was much safer and more reliable when new, but it had its own problems with corrosion of its intricate internal parts from fumes from the projectile's Explosive "D" filler that limited it to a reliable shelf-life of six months until a Bakelite plastic outer coating was developed in mid-1943 to seal the fumes out, solving the shelf-life problem from then on in new or remanufactured AP
at http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... use-issues Nathun is quoted as giving the additional info as follows:
The fuze worked fine during acceptance tests and when installed in the shells for up to 6 months, but the designers forgot something: The Explosive "D" (ammonium picrate) filler used (only) in US Navy naval ammunition from about 1911 through after WWII (only some AA shells used any other filler) tended to emit some fumes that could corrode metal, though the fuze internal mechanism was not touching the filler and nobody thought that small amount of fumes and the slight corrosion they might cause inside the fuze meant anything; it never had caused a problem before. However, those tight alignment tolerances REQUIRED NO CORROSION WHATSOEVER BE PRESENT, so after 6 months the corrosion began to interfere with fuze function more and more often. The final straw was the failure of several Mark 21 BDF used in the 16" Mark 8 AP projectiles when firing on the JEAN BART at Casablanca during Operation Torch -- after inspection of the duds (about half of the shells) some of the fuzes were found to have failed due to this corrosion problem and a major effort was made to identify what was the cause (which was found immediately) and to fix it (which took until the middle of 1943, when dipping the entire fuze in "Bakelite" liquid plastic and allowing it to harden into an air-tight seal was found to work).

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by alecsandros » Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:45 pm

lwd wrote:
Did they? Assumeing that was a snide reference to Jean Bart we have According to http://polyticks.com/bbma/shells.htm
The shells functioned as expected.
2 perforated the armored decks and exploded inside; 2 others hit the turret face for the only main turret installed, and the barbette of that turret. As the range was ~ 22km, the shells did not manage to perforate the 430mm, and 405mm thick plates respectively. The shock of the impact with heavy armor naturaly damaged the projectiles.
A fifth shell passed through some lightly protected areas, and ended in the water. It is unknown if it was fuzed or not, or if it exploded or not.

At least 2 other sources mention Massachussets disabling 2 French destroyers and sinking another ship in the harbor with her 16" shells.

Thus, the question remains : how do you explain that the same gun using the same shell performed just as it should have on Nov 13th ?

In Washington's case, there was no armor plate capable of stopping any of the shells, the thickest portion perforated being 145mm thick.
Considering the fuze delay of 0.033s, a shell traveling at 600m/s would probably explode 19m after perforation, which means that for most of the impacts described by Lundgren, the shells would exit on the other side of the ship due to battle geometry.
Why aren't there any exit holes mentioned on Ikeda's drawings ? Did ALL the shells from Washington have problems ?

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by lwd » Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:05 pm

alecsandros wrote: ... At least 2 other sources mention Massachussets disabling 2 French destroyers and sinking another ship in the harbor with her 16" shells.

Thus, the question remains : how do you explain that the same gun using the same shell performed just as it should have on Nov 13th ?
...
The quote above specifically states that they did not perform as they should have. There were I beleive a number of merchats sunk in the harbor for instance but I don't know if the shells went off or not however Nathun apparently stated:
The final straw was the failure of several Mark 21 BDF used in the 16" Mark 8 AP projectiles when firing on the JEAN BART at Casablanca during Operation Torch -- after inspection of the duds (about half of the shells) some of the fuzes were found to have failed due to this corrosion problem
I'll take his word until someone produces some solid evidence to the contrary.

ede144
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by ede144 » Wed Jun 20, 2012 8:29 pm

lwd wrote:
ede144 wrote:Lwd
I like your post, so overwhelming full of facts.
Which one?
Maybee a ber or two would have helped to calm down.
???
Both posts

Your posts read as you have been embarrassed

Regards
Ede

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by lwd » Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:37 pm

ede144 wrote:
lwd wrote:
ede144 wrote:Lwd
I like your post, so overwhelming full of facts.
Which one?
Maybee a ber or two would have helped to calm down.
???
Both posts
Your posts read as you have been embarrassed
I don't see how you can infer that. I simply pointed out some problems with Karl's posts as I am want to do from time to time. That's why I was so puzzled by your initial post as mine contained a somewhat higher fact to fiction ratio than Karl's yet you saw fit to chastise me rather than him.

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

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:48 am

Some guys need to legitimate themselves asuming that the rest sees things as they do. Wrong.
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 construction flaws

Post by alecsandros » Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:35 am

lwd wrote:
The final straw was the failure of several Mark 21 BDF used in the 16" Mark 8 AP projectiles when firing on the JEAN BART at Casablanca during Operation Torch -- after inspection of the duds (about half of the shells) some of the fuzes were found to have failed due to this corrosion problem
I'll take his word until someone produces some solid evidence to the contrary.
Which shells ?
Mass fired 786 x 16" shells that day.

Only 5 hit Jean Bart - 2 perforated and exploded, 2 broke up in contact with heavy armor, 1 unknown.

Do some more research on this matter.

It may interest you that on navweapons forum there is a 13-14 pg discussion about Mass firing at Casablanca. Plenty of info there.

Post Reply