Bismarck's Class status quo in the BB realm

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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

Bismarck's Class status quo in the BB realm

Post by alecsandros »

Reading various posts on the forum, I've seen 3 points of view regarding's Bismarck's class status quo in the BB realm:

1. Very good ship, good design, impressive toughness, good speed, very good artillery (range, rate of fire, precision), "best ship in the Atlantic"

2. Good ship, good speed, good vital protection, moderate design, moderate artillery, "one of the best in the Atlantic"

3. Mediocre ship, mediocre guns, mediocre everything, "another myth of WW2"

--------------

I myself am adrift somewhere between 1) and 2). The main reason, beyond personal favorites, technical charts, historical facts, documentaries and internet-disseminated analysis (ex Mr Okun's) is a political one:

Churchill said "Sink the Bismarck!", and a vast fleet set sail in order to do that. It was very difficult, and costly, to sink the german BB. And , one year later, it was Churchill still that ordered "Sink the BB Tirpitz!", and, yet again, a huge force, comprised of battleships, aircraft and land-based planes, plus submarines, had tried for more than 2 years to send it to the bottom.
I don't think that under war conditions a country, even a powerfull one, can afford to block 3-4-5 BB's and escorts, dozens of planes, etc, in order to sink THE ONE ONLY BB OF THE ENEMY.

And, finaly, many of you have compared Bismarck class with Vittorio Veneto's and Richelieu's, but when has anyone given the order "SINK THE ROMA" or "DESTROY RICHELIEU"?

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

Re: Tirpitz and Vittorio Veneto

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

alecsandros:

You are quite right on this, which is why the thread on Bismarck and her Contemporaries is all about. I think that you posted the three basic assumptions in which all comments are generally based. I started being a member of No.1 and went all the way to No. 3 just to discover that the Okun´s position could be contested by very prestegious authors as Friedman, Raven and Roberts, Skulsky, Koop and Schmoltke and Garzke and Dullin. There are also other sources that could bring debate to this.
Bismarck was not, as James Cameron regarded in his documentary: "The Death Star of her era" but she wasn´t a defective product of German naval inactivity post WWII. She was a more cunning design that the "common wisdom" accepts because of the fear that by doing that other concepts could be taken as flaws or mistaken at the best. Which is not true, neither.
Anyway you pointed out an element which is the one that attracts many (if not all) of the critizcism to Bismarck and is the fact of her notoriety, of her legendary fame. No allied BB went through the crucibiles of the numerical inferior axis powers, specially Bismarck. Schanhorst, Yamato and Bismarck were destroyed in circumstances that evey screenplayer will dream. On the other side the Allies cannot muster that amount of legends despite the fact that had double or triple the amount of ships, or BBs. Aside from the British there is no great allied big gun action in circumstances of peril and dramatic engagement... maybe Second Guadalacanal but certainly not Surigao.
Whatever the conclusions it is Bismarck the one most people think of when they hear the word "battleship". Don´t think that any kid would think in... Maryland or Howe...
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Tirpitz and Vittorio Veneto

Post by lwd »

alecsandros wrote: ...And, finaly, many of you have compared Bismarck class with Vittorio Veneto's and Richelieu's, but when has anyone given the order "SINK THE ROMA" or "DESTROY RICHELIEU"?
...,
Well I'm pretty sure Hitler gave orders to sink a number of Italian ships including several of their battleships, so "SINK THE ROMA" may actually have been issued but in German rather than English. As for the Richelieu while she was a fine BB she was but one of many on the allied side and frankly the axis had greater worries than allied battleships in general and there were better BBs on the allied side than Richelieu. In any case such orders are a function of a lot more than the quality of the ship. For instance polital and strategic considerations can easily dominate such declarations. What it does indicate is that the British considered Bismarck more important than the twins and later on also considered Tirpitz in a similar light.
Lutscha
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Tirpitz and Vittorio Veneto

Post by Lutscha »

Okun has assisted G&D in evaluating German gunnery and the armour systems. Page X in the preface " Mr. Nathan Okun contributed information on German gunnery and armor and was helpful putting together technical information regarding the protection schemes of the Bismarck and Scharnhorst classes. It is believed, that thanks to this unprecedented cooperation, the chapters concerned with German capital-ship design are the most complete that can be written today."

In the summary of the BS chapter, they talk about the weakness of the German horizontal armour system (page 296) "Several weaknesses were revealed in the Bismarck and Tirpitz during the wartime career. Among these were the rudder arrangement, the secondary armament and the arrangement of the horizontal armor protection."

On page 299 they mention the proofing angles of the German shells. "Even the acceptance specifications did not change-normal impact against caliber-thickness cemented armor-being well below the specifications of American and British World War II armor-piercing projectiles."


When reading G&D it is quite apparent, that they are not very fond of the German deck armour system. They also give examples where it failed.

I fail to see, where they disagree with Okun, as they mention the rather weak horizontal armour which is one of the major points and the German proofing angles and worked with him together.

Stating that he is contested by them ist not true.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tirpitz and Vittorio Veneto

Post by alecsandros »

When talking/writing about such important historical issues, I think that clarity of thought and understanding are essential for learning. That being said, please excuse my numerous quotations and long post:
Karl Heidenreich wrote:alecsandros:

Bismarck was not, as James Cameron regarded in his documentary: "The Death Star of her era" but she wasn´t a defective product of German naval inactivity post WWII. She was a more cunning design that the "common wisdom" accepts because of the fear that by doing that other concepts could be taken as flaws or mistaken at the best. Which is not true, neither.
Anyway you pointed out an element which is the one that attracts many (if not all) of the critizcism to Bismarck and is the fact of her notoriety, of her legendary fame. No allied BB went through the crucibiles of the numerical inferior axis powers, specially Bismarck. Whatever the conclusions it is Bismarck the one most people think of when they hear the word "battleship". Don´t think that any kid would think in... Maryland or Howe...
If I understand correctly, you're saying that the faith (destiny) of Bismarck/Tirpitz and the romantic "one versus the world" picture made them huge in popular media and consequently influenced many naval enthusiasts into viewing them as "super-weapons".
I won't question their romantic image, that's obvious. What I'm willing to question is the type of judgment behind most of "historical myth-busting", namely historical revisionism. This trend can be very usefull in deciphering engimas of the past, and in our ultimate pursuit of factual truth. On the other hand, the type of judgment associated with it - absolute critical judgment - can be highly corrosive, and, in pursuit of demolishing something we might end up demolishing everything.

Moving on from the philosophical stand-point, into the realm of historical facts, we can see that both Bismarck and Tirpitz had a harsh destiny (heroical destiny), but also we can see that their endurance capacity was very high.
And by this I'm moving to the next issue: the ability to measure the endurance capacity of a ship. We can (and should) use armour statistics, displacement and compartimentation intel, knowledge regarding capital ship construction plans, etc. And, after that, we have to put them all together, in our heads . And that can be very, very tricky: to analyse and ultimately understand the results of the work of thousands of architects, designers, armourers, that took years to accomplish.
That's why I don't think that we can wage a serious argument regarding the might of ship A or B or C using this kind of encyclopedical knowledge. Only a person whose life has been dedicated to the design/construction of a large warship can do that, and even than with uncertain results.

But what CAN we do? We can use the encyclopedical knowledge in very specific and discrete arguments ("which ship had the largest displacement", "was the knietical energy of a 15"/L42 bigger than that of a 11"/L50", etc), and use only historical data (facts, events) for our conclusions.

And, historically, Bismarck dispatched Hood, forced PoW to retreat, was attacked by 2 aircraft cariers, later destroyers, cruisers, and 2 BBs. He was hit at least 6 times (maybe even 8 times) by torpedoes, and still had floating capacity. The chase, that spawned the entire Bismarck romance, had dire consequences for some british convoys that remained un-guarded, and paid the price in blood.
Also, historically, Tirpitz was attacked almost 20 times by aircraft, at one point by 120 warplanes! He was hit at one time by 14 bombs (3x1600lbs, 11x500lbs), another time by a tall-boy 12000lbs, and the last time by 2 tall-boys and 3 near-misses. Also, he had 2x2t explosive devices placed underneath its keel in 1943 by X subs, and still it survived.

But the most important argument for the "very good battleships, perhaps the best in the Atlantic" still remains the huge forces involved in their destruction. The RN mantained a "fleet in being" against a possible break-out of the Tirpitz; also, full squadrons of bombers, torpedo bombers, and other aircraft where used to hit it again and again. And all that while the British Empire was losing badly in the east (serious losses in the Java Sea and Indian Ocean) and was fighting desperately in the Mediteranean.
As lwd replied, " For instance polital and strategic considerations can easily dominate such declarations". That's precisely the point: you can't waste strategic resources (BB, CV, CA), which are badly needed elsewhere IF you have no reason to. Then, if you DO keep 3 BB's against ONE ENEMY BB "just in case", that means you have a problem...

So, I see two options out:
a) either the British grossly overestimated the fighting capacity of BS/TZ,
b) or the german BBs where indeed very powerfull, more powerfull than any british BB at that time.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Tirpitz and Vittorio Veneto

Post by lwd »

alecsandros wrote:...
As lwd replied, " For instance polital and strategic considerations can easily dominate such declarations". That's precisely the point: you can't waste strategic resources (BB, CV, CA), which are badly needed elsewhere IF you have no reason to. Then, if you DO keep 3 BB's against ONE ENEMY BB "just in case", that means you have a problem...

So, I see two options out:
a) either the British grossly overestimated the fighting capacity of BS/TZ,
b) or the german BBs where indeed very powerfull, more powerfull than any british BB at that time.
The mistaken assumption is that the British BBs were badly needed elsewhere. Where do you think they were so needed? The allies had the resources to keep 3 on one and did so. You must also consider that if your oponent is trying to breakout then it may take more than one to give you a good chance of intercepting him. Then of course there were other German ships around as well. In fact some of the engagments related to them make a point. You don't want a fair fight in war. Thus the British sent 2 BBs vs Bismarck both times. They got very unlucky the first time but not so the second. They also sent a BB (Warspite) to kill a bunch of destroyers. Tirpitz was the only axis BB in the Atlantic after 41 that was close to a match for any of the post WWI British BBs. Of course she got a fair amount of attention.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tirpitz and Vittorio Veneto

Post by alecsandros »

lwd wrote: The mistaken assumption is that the British BBs were badly needed elsewhere. Where do you think they were so needed?
In the Mediteranean, for instance. Lacking armoured protection, 2 large convoys (operations "Vigorous" and "Harpoon")heading for Malta where severely crippled in 1942.

And in Asia - to fight against the Japanese. They mostly needed CV's there, but also BB's.
lwd wrote: The allies had the resources to keep 3 on one and did so. You must also consider that if your oponent is trying to breakout then it may take more than one to give you a good chance of intercepting him.
So, in the Med, US+GB should have had 9+ battleships all the time. But they didn't. Not even once.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Tirpitz and Vittorio Veneto

Post by lwd »

alecsandros wrote:
lwd wrote: The mistaken assumption is that the British BBs were badly needed elsewhere. Where do you think they were so needed?
In the Mediteranean, for instance. Lacking armoured protection, 2 large convoys (operations "Vigorous" and "Harpoon")heading for Malta where severely crippled in 1942.
Needed certainly but if the Tirpitz wasn't there they would still have needed BBs to guard against one or both the twins breaking out.
And in Asia - to fight against the Japanese. They mostly needed CV's there, but also BB's.
BBs in the Pacific without air cover were likely to get damaged or sunk before acomplishing much. There was a very narrow window in 42 where some British BBs might have been very useful but it didn't last all that long. Not the they wouldn't have been useful but by 43 they were far from critical.
lwd wrote: The allies had the resources to keep 3 on one and did so. You must also consider that if your oponent is trying to breakout then it may take more than one to give you a good chance of intercepting him.
So, in the Med, US+GB should have had 9+ battleships all the time. But they didn't. Not even once.[/quote]
They didn't have to worry about the Italians "breaking out". The Italian BBs weren't going outside the Med and weren't contesting British heavy units for the most part.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Tirpitz and Vittorio Veneto

Post by Bgile »

alecsandros wrote:He was hit at least 6 times (maybe even 8 times) by torpedoes, and still had floating capacity.
Here are the torpedo hits I'm aware of:

1. One hit on Bismarck's belt armor by a British lightweight arial torpedo which obviously ran too shallow to do much damage. If it functioned properly it would hit below the belt.

2. The famous rudder hit, also by a lightweight arial torpedo.

3 & 4. The two hits claimed by Dorsetshire after Bismarck was already sinking, but not corroborated by German sources.

Please refresh my memory. I can't come up with either six or eight. When and where were these hits? I know Rodney expended all of her torpedoes and claimed one hit, but the Germans don't seem to have noticed it.

Bismarck had a modern TDS, but a torpedo hit on any ship isn't something that you don't notice, and if it functions correctly it will do significant damage. I'm not being especially critical of Bismarck; this is true of any ship in any navy.
User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Tirpitz and Vittorio Veneto

Post by tommy303 »

The ones I can recall are:
one aerial torpedo hit by Swordfish from Victorious on the armour belt.
one aerial torpedo hit by Swordfish from Ark Royal amidships, possibly on the armour belt
one aerial torpedo hit by Swordfish from Ark Royal in the steering compartment
two sea launched torpedo hits from Dorsetshire while Bismarck was in the throes of sinking
one claimed but unverified torpedo hit from Rodney during the main action.

I think there were several claims by Vian's destroyers as well but all were denied by German survivors. They would in any event have been extraordinarily lucky hits due to the enormous seas, greater than ideal launching range, and accurate German defensive fire.

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

Re: Tirpitz and Vittorio Veneto

Post by alecsandros »

"Bismarck had already received at least 8, if not 12 torpedoes and lots of heavy shells", Liddell Hart, History of the Second World War, vol 1, pg 495.

There were the destroyer attacks (during the night and during the last battle), and Dorsetshire fired 4 torpedoes, not 2. Norfolk also launched its torpedoes (I don't know how many).
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tirpitz and Vittorio Veneto

Post by alecsandros »

lwd wrote:They didn't have to worry about the Italians "breaking out". The Italian BBs weren't going outside the Med and weren't contesting British heavy units for the most part.
Of course the Italian's wouldn't break out. But still, they posed a big threat to allied convoys, expeditionary forces and British African harbours. The Mediteranean was a vast theatre of operations, that needed constant attention from the late 1940s until mid 1943.

And, if you say that the Italian BBs "contesting British heavy units for the most part", do you agree that the Vittorio Venetto class was weaker than Bismarck?
Last edited by alecsandros on Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: Tirpitz and Vittorio Veneto

Post by José M. Rico »

Dorsetshire actually fired three torpedoes. Here is a list of all known/possible torpedo hits (not counting claims by Vian's destroyers ):

24 May. Midnight. Hit by one 18 inch MK XII torpedo on the starboard side, amidships.

26 May. 2047-2115 hours. Hit by two (or three) 18 inch MK XII torpedoes. One torpedo (or two) hit the port side amidships, and another hit the stern in the starboard side. As a result of this attack both rudders jammed at 12º to port. Lütjens only reported 2 hits but Müllenheim-Rechberg always said that he heard 2 hits before the final hit in the stern.

27 May. 0958 hours. Possible torpedo hit to port. Rodney claimed a hit; the Germans deny it.

27 May. 1000 hours. Possible hit to the starboard side. Claimed by Norfolk; the Germans deny it.

27 May. 1022 hours. Hit on the starboard side by two 21 inch MK VII torpedoes fired by Dorsetshire from 3,000 meters (3,280 yards).

27 May. 1037 hours. Hit on the port side by one 21 inch MK VII torpedo fired by Dorsetshire from 2,200 meters (2,400 yards).

27 May. 1039 hours. Bismarck sinks.

So, we have a total of 6-9 hits.
boredatwork
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:42 pm

Re: Tirpitz and Vittorio Veneto

Post by boredatwork »

alecsandros wrote:Reading various posts on the forum, I've seen 3 points of view regarding's Bismarck's class status quo in the BB realm:

1. Very good ship, good design, impressive toughness, good speed, very good artillery (range, rate of fire, precision), "best ship in the Atlantic"

2. Good ship, good speed, good vital protection, moderate design, moderate artillery, "one of the best in the Atlantic"

3. Mediocre ship, mediocre guns, mediocre everything, "another myth of WW2"

I would argue the 'truth' is probably a combination of all 3. She was probably the "best" ship in the Atlantic in 1941 but not decisively so. In that respect she is a Myth - that revolves largely around her sinking of the 20 year old Hood. Because the Hood's weaknesses were not generally advertised pre-war the Hood had an exagerated aura of power and strength and as a result the ease of her destruction gave too much credit to Bismarck.

A properly trained KGV, Richelieu, Littorio or North Carolina (as opposed to PoW) on the otherhand could meet her with a reasonable degree of confidence 1 on 1. While Bismarck would be more likely to come off the best in a fight between any of them she would be unlikely to sink them, and equally unlikely to escape at least moderate damage in return.

Moreover depending on the context much of the criticism of the Bismarck's design comes from the fact that to achieve that power she was considerably heavier than most of her contemporaries and that had the other designers had the same freedom the difference in power as a result of design *quality* would be much less pronounced - ie compare the Lion class with the still slightly heavier Bismarck and the design looks less impressive.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Tirpitz and Vittorio Veneto

Post by Bgile »

boredatwork wrote:I would argue the 'truth' is probably a combination of all 3.
Absolutely agree with this post.
Post Reply