Is this a dumb (on my part) question on Bismarck's armor

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Is this a dumb (on my part) question on Bismarck's armor

Post by RF »

Agreed - all I was asking was whether you concurred with his analysis, or whether you had a different definition to ''heavily armoured.''.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: Is this a dumb (on my part) question on Bismarck's armor

Post by Vic Dale »

I don't believe a simple weight of armour comparison can usefully be made between ships. The question is; how effective is the armour outfit? For example a ship which is armoured over most of it's length may carry a far heavier armour outfit, than one which has armour only where it is needed, yet be no less effective at keeping afloat.

Bismarck employed a relatively thin upper deck of 3 inches combined with a turtle-deck of medium thickness - 5 inches - two decks below. The intention being to de-cap an incoming shell and initiate the fuse, so that it exploded relatively harmlessly between these decks. This area was, I believe, known as the sacrificial space, where only galleys and sleeping quarters were located. No shell penetrated to Bismarck's magazines, gunnery control rooms or machinery spaces via the upper deck. The only damage done to spaces below this turtle deck was from shells passing beneath the armour belt.

It has been suggested that Bismarck's turrets were under armoured, as her big guns were knocked out relatively early in the battle. It should however, be remembered that she was engaging two ships which were about 90 degrees apart from her, so that as Bismarck engaged Rodney ahead, she exposed the relatively slim armour of her turret sides to KGV standing to port.

In an unequal battle such as Bismarck faced and with the enemy so tactically well placed, Bismarck should have quickly succumbed. That she did not quickly succumb is testimony to her construction and the way she was fought, which gave British Admirals many sleepless night wondering about Tirtpitz. Tirpitz earned her reputation as the scourge of the Arctic convoys without firing a shot thanks to the reputation of her less fortunate sister.

It should also be recognised that Bismarck's ship's company performed their allotted tasks to the very last, serving the guns until they could fire no more and kept the engines running smoothly so that they were still turning when the ship went under. This made it possible for the ship's command to limit most of the damage from incoming fire to the foreparts of the ship. Continuous Damage Control operations kept the ship in battle for an extended period and also made it possible to get a great many men out of the stricken hull. That many hundreds more were not saved is down to an unfortunate turn of events after they entered the water.

Bismarck's armour performed remarkably well and in the end she had to be scuttled to prevent her capture after defeat.
Post Reply