Bismarck construction flaws

[Ulrich Rudofsky]

I always thought that the Bismarck was constructed quite well as an armored ship, but that the most serious and deadly construction flaw was in the layout and conceptual plan for adequate antiaircraft defenses of the time. Even at dockside they never shot down an attacking aircraft for certain! Is there any record that the Bismarck ever shot down an aircraft anywhere? The artillery testing command considered the Flak totally inadequate, the design awful, and the equipment deficient and placed at weird locations. The artillery testing command never completed their inspection nor released the Flak for operation. The anti-aircraft designs of the Bismarck were obsolete as to air defense systems. History proves this point clearly. The ship should have been readily capable of blowing away the air attacks from small obsolete aircraft. The rudder design was also a problem long before it got hit by a torpedo. It jammed once before and had virtually no manual override. The push button steering was not all that good without an effective override. Sort of like the Airbus.

[Bgile]

I always thought that the Bismarck was constructed quite well as an armored ship, but that the most serious and deadly construction flaw was in the layout and conceptual plan for adequate antiaircraft defenses of the time. Even at dockside they never shot down an attacking aircraft for certain! Is there any record that the Bismarck ever shot down an aircraft anywhere? The artillery testing command considered the Flak totally inadequate, the design awful, and the equipment deficient and placed at weird locations. The artillery testing command never completed their inspection nor released the Flak for operation. The anti-aircraft designs of the Bismarck were obsolete as to air defense systems. History proves this point clearly. The ship should have been readily capable of blowing away the air attacks from small obsolete aircraft. The rudder design was also a problem long before it got hit by a torpedo. It jammed once before and had virtually no manual override. The push button steering was not all that good without an effective override. Sort of like the Airbus.

Absolutely. She wasn't unique in that regard though. The British made an attempt at DP armament with the 5.25" but it was found seriously wanting, and the Yamato class was built with a 6.1" secondary battery. Noone really had good AAA in 1941. The US chose the right weapon with the 5"/38 and it's excellent loading arrangement, but it took a while for even that weapon to become really effective against aircraft as fire control evolved and eventually the proximity fuse appeared (ironically invented by the British).

The Brits initially rejected the 40mm Bofors (for safety reasons but I'm wondering if it was really "not made here" problem), which the US simply packed their ships with. That weapon would have made mincemeat of Swordfish aircraft but was later found to be marginal vs Kamikazes due to lack of effective range and hitting power. The 2 lb pom pom had problems with reliability, rate of fire per barrel, and range(muzzle velocity) and was simply not as good a weapon.

[Tiornu]

When I think of "construction flaws," I think of shoddy workmanship and inferior materials. I'm not aware of any such problems with Bismarck.

[Pax Melmacia]

I read somewhere that one of the flaws in the Bismarck's design was inadequate protection for the rudders. IMHO, this smacks of hindsight in the light of the critical effect of the ship's damaged rudders. Still, it got me wondering: How does one protect rudders?

I don't have that source with me now, but I vaguely recall that book had a picture where there was a distinct gap between the top of the rudder and the bottom of the hull (Sorry, I'm not familiar with the proper nautical terms ) The Tamiya mode also reflects this somewhat.

Yet in Luis Gonzales' drawings in this forum the top of the rudders mesh neatly with the bottom of the hull. Which is correct?

[Tiornu]

Rudders are protected by armor. Bismarck was pretty well off in this regard. However, armor does nothing to counter torpedoes. There the only possible countermeasures are attempts to minimize damage. Several dreadnought designs included auxiliary rudders, but these proved largely useless. One could say that the WWII standard of twin rudders was itself a sort of redundancy, but Bismarck here was at a disadvantage because her tapered hull forced the two rudders to be mounted in tight proximity. The Italians went one step farther in having three rudders, something that was unthinkable with Bismarck's hull form. Lastly, the specifics of the rudder operating mechanisms might provide more options in the case of a jammed rudder.

[RF]

The rudder design was also a problem long before it got hit by a torpedo. It jammed once before and had virtually no manual override. The push button steering was not all that good without an effective override. Sort of like the Airbus.

I believe that a temprory rudder jam occured on Bismarck in the Denmark Strait, as Prinz Eugen was overtaking to take station ahead of Bismarck (per Ludovic Kennedy) causing Bismarck to turn sharply towards Prinz Eugen. Apparently only rapid evasive action by Brinckmann avoided a collision.

[RF]

This subject is often discussed in military and naval circles.
Can somebody enumerate Bismarck construction flaws and their possible impact on the ship's final demise?

In the final analysis there is no such thing as the perfect or unsinkable ship. Neither can you legislate for Sods Law.

I think the Bismarck was about as well constructed as she could have been with the resources available to the Germans in those days.

As already noted, you can't put armour plating wrapped all the way around rudders, all a captain can do is to comb tracks to avoid torpedoes.
The Prince of Wales had the same problem, courtesy of the Japanese.

Anti-aircraft systems were very much in their infancy at this time, air attack was really still an unknown quantity.

Would it not be the case that if Bismarck had reached dry-dock in St. Nazaire the Germans would have started to address some of these deficiences in the light of experience?

[costas]

Bgile on Tue May 17,2005 8:25pm wrote:

'Not having the capability of remote pumping of the forward compartments containing fuel has been mentioned.'

Indeed, there were pumps in compartment XVII and "were not of much use" (Baron)
Assuming that Bismarck's fuel tanks were independent or could be individually isolated from each other (valves/vanes),
so that a leak in one of them does not affect the others, then fuel pumps are candidates for construction and/or design
flaws.
Should the pumps had the ability to move the fuel from the ripped-up storage tanks (XIV) and the double bottom to the
other (undamaged by PoW's shell No2) tanks, then there would be no 'streak' in BS's wake and more important, some
of the fuel that would leak in the ocean could be preserved.
Of course, load can't be moved around a ship freely and this fuel removal from one tank to another could cause listing etc.
Some trade-off between listing and fuel retained may be necessary.
Though fuel wasn't very important, if some could be saved then it would be one thing less to worry about.

[yonmin]

The design if the bismarck were only useful and powerful if attached to a big fleet. For example, if u put the bismarck together with the yamato, iowa, north caroline and the repulse. This combination cover each other disadvantage up and if the whole of german surface navy fleet attack together success could be seen. The bismarck armour is the worst problem. The german should know that the allied hav big naval force and move in big group. The bismarck armour could never defend itself from many ships at a go or planes. The only way for it to escape is through high speed withdrawal, if the armour were much lighter the bismarck may be better. Since the bismarck were only alone with prinz eugene, there should't be any aerial identification marking, it would take time for the home fleet to react and haunt it down.

[RF]

In which case the ''no unnecessary risks'' order would come into play and in that context would make sense.

[Laurenz]

Dear Yonmin,

this is understood.

The design if the bismarck were only useful and powerful if attached to a big fleet.

But what would do you had done in the position of a German naval leader in SKL?
Stay with Bismarck in the Baltic Sea? Only some 50 U-Boats in action?
Kind regards,
L.

[paul mercer]

I always thought that the Bismarck was constructed quite well as an armored ship, but that the most serious and deadly construction flaw was in the layout and conceptual plan for adequate antiaircraft defenses of the time. Even at dockside they never shot down an attacking aircraft for certain! Is there any record that the Bismarck ever shot down an aircraft anywhere? The artillery testing command considered the Flak totally inadequate, the design awful, and the equipment deficient and placed at weird locations. The artillery testing command never completed their inspection nor released the Flak for operation. The anti-aircraft designs of the Bismarck were obsolete as to air defense systems. History proves this point clearly. The ship should have been readily capable of blowing away the air attacks from small obsolete aircraft. The rudder design was also a problem long before it got hit by a torpedo. It jammed once before and had virtually no manual override. The push button steering was not all that good without an effective override. Sort of like the Airbus.

I think the problem was with both British and German ships re AA defence was that when they were designed the threat from the air was not really fully appreciated. It was not until the aftermath of the Bismarck/POW/Repulse sinkings (and of course Pearl Harbour) that it was at last realised that the day of the battleship was over - although we did set the standard when we attacked the Italians at Taranto!

[yonmin]

Why put the bismarck with the U-boats. The bismarck should hav gone with a joint mission with the SCHARNHORST, GNEISENAU and TIRPITZ. The british would be alarmed and send every single ship in hand to destroy it.Making use of the distraction the german could unleashed operation 'sealion'. With no navy opposing the sacrifice of 4 battleship for the isalnd of uk is nothing. If not invading the firepower of 4 BB with the AA there no worry of much failure

[Laurenz]

Dear Yonmin,
sealion was not possible. The plan was to send 70 divisions to England.
70 divisions were at this time a main part of the Wehrmacht.
Stalin could have done easely a step into Europe, what he did later. Only the speed of the US troups and the sinking motivation of the Germans at the western front avoided that the Red army reach the Rhine river or further targets.
Hitler himself supported the Sovjets when he moved Waffen SS from east to west to bring them into action during the Ardennes in 1944.

Tecnically Seelöwe was not so difficult.
The British knew that Cerberus will happen and they accepted it. In the channel were no British BB's, so no need to draw them away from Scapa Flow.
Kind regards,
L.

[RF]

although we did set the standard when we attacked the Italians at Taranto!

Cunningham never expected the attack to be as successful as it was - and of course it was the Japanese who initially learned the full implication....

The other consideration is what can be achieved by good air and sea defence against aircraft, as demonstrated during Thunderbolt/Cerebus particulary if the air attack is too lightweight.