Bismarck 15" guns.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:40 pm

By 1937 the British, the Americans and the Japanese had 16" gun batteries in many of their main surface units. The Germans knew this and had, also, the need for her raiders to engage convoy escorts (16" gun equipped vessels included) so their smaller units can destroy the convoy´s merchant ships. In this order of things the equipping of the Bismarck Class Battleships with 16" guns was not an overdesign but a question of supremacy and survival for her combat vessels.
Being Germany a very industrialized country with many resources and outstanding engineers they could had installed those 16" guns on their BBs by 1940 instead of the 15" (they even built jet fighters, ballistic rockets and only God knows what else!). Doing this by the modification of some production lines at the Krupp Industries without disturbing other important war resources.
Just the thought.

Ulrich Rudofsky · Post by **Ulrich Rudofsky** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:57 pm

Doing this by the modification of some production lines at the Krupp Industries without disturbing other important war resources.

As far as I know, Krupp called the shots. The Kriegsmarine during the Kaiser's and Hitler's time got what Krupp decided. Testing a new naval gun in 1935 - 39 would have been a giant undertaking that may have even required redesigning the entire ship, turrets, amo elevators etc..

ontheslipway · Post by **ontheslipway** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:40 pm

Turret design and manufacturing are the determining factors in building time, switching to 16" guns probably meant an unacceptable delay.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:01 pm

Ulrich wrote

As far as I know, Krupp called the shots. The Kriegsmarine during the Kaiser's and Hitler's time got what Krupp decided.

If the German dictatorship allowed a private contractor to dictate his terms then they deserve to get whipped. It´s like having MacDonnell Douglass or General Dynamics dictate National Security Policy to the US. Totally unaceptable.

Then Foeth wrote

Turret design and manufacturing are the determining factors in building time, switching to 16" guns probably meant an unacceptable delay.

Well, I´m not that sure. If those Germans could build a jet fighter in the middle of allied strategic bombing raids or a ballistic missile then, with enough goverment pressure and support, they could have built the 16" gun and give it the necesary trials. It´s obvious that if we maintain Bismarck laid down date then she would never be able to make it for Rheinubung at May 1941... so she would have survived.

ontheslipway · Post by **ontheslipway** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:15 pm

Well I am certain. And if I can wash my car in one hour doesn't mean my neighbor can wash his boat in two.... the jet fighter isn't a valid argument

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:38 pm

I´m talking about a national effort. If we can accept that the Germans were a defeated, bankrupt and demoralized society in 1929 with a simbolical army, no air force, no KM and only Cabarets in Berlin were only decadence can be found, and less than ten years later they were trying to conquer Europe... that too, by merely equation, wasn´t possible to be done. But it was.
I remember that on one occasion a Pentagon bureaucrat in the early 70s put the Vietnamese PIB data against USA PIB, the stadistics of industry, military technololgy, population, etc. of both contendants (a McNamara way of thinking) into a computer and ask the machine when the USA will win in Vietnam. The computer answer was: Ten Years Ago!
There is much of Will in this sort of things. If you visit Japan in 1869 and tell a westener that 36 years later those medieval samurais would defeat the Russian Fleet not one but two times with their own battleships probably you can laugh. But there it is. It´s more a matter of will than any other thing if you had the means to achieve something. And Germany have always thad he means and, ocassionaly, the will.

Ulrich Rudofsky · Post by **Ulrich Rudofsky** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 7:42 pm

If the German dictatorship allowed a private contractor to dictate his terms then they deserve to get whipped.

I would not get too romantic about German know-how and the power of the dictatorships of the Kaiser or Führer over Krupp. Legend has it that Krupp told Kaiser Willi that he may think he is the Kaiser, but Krupp really runs the country; he may have said the same to Adolf.

I think Foeth is absolutely right; the delays would have been serious and expensive and unacceptable in time, materials, and money and manpower. The Reich always yielded to Krupp and some measure of "guter Menschenverstand" [commonsense] did prevail at times. Krupp, and even Skoda and Blohm & Voss, carried a big stick.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:10 pm

I yield to your argument. But still the 16" guns would have been a great asset in Bismarck´s design and operation.

Ulrich Rudofsky · Post by **Ulrich Rudofsky** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:30 pm

I would choose the bigger gun too, but I don't think the Bismarck's design could have accomodated it and the associated weight like ammo and turrets etc. Hence the designs of the never-builts: H class (40.6 cm/16 in) and the H 41 (42 cm/16.5 in).

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:38 pm

An ultimate design of the H Class, I recall, was going to use 20" guns in four double turrets, isn´t?
How much such a warhead must have weighted?

Ulrich Rudofsky · Post by **Ulrich Rudofsky** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:51 pm

http://www.navis-neptun.de/frame_deu.html

H design 1939 model by Neptun 1:1250

The imaginary designs would have been quite a show piece:
H42, 43 - 48 cm/19 in
H44 50.8 - cm/20 in

marcelo_malara · Post by **marcelo_malara** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:52 pm

Don´t know the 20", but Campbell mentions a 21" experimental gun completed that had a 2200 kg shell.

With respect to technology dictating policy, it comes even to this date. For example the development of ultra-accurate strategic missile guidance made the USA nuclear policy change from counter-value (targeting cities) to counter-force (targeting missiles silos and command posts).

Dave Saxton · Post by **Dave Saxton** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:00 am

According to German documents reported on by Breyer, Elfarth, and Koop...ect.. the 16" was not considered for political reasons. At the time of the design, Germany was abrogating Versialles, and negotiating an aggreement with Britian. There were only two battleships sporting 16" guns in Europe, and they were both British. A German use of 16" at that stage could have been seen as provoking Britian. The French battleships were the ones that the KM had their eyes on. The 35cm or 38cm weapons were plenty powerful enough, so why risk political complications? The H-class however, was intended to use 16" right from the beginning.

A balanced design, having a reasonable immunity zone against it's own gun, would not have been possible on the working tonnage ranges, among some of the technical problems alluded to. By way of example, the USN had to drop the idea of the ship being armoured against it's own gun, in the case of the Iowas. It would of required an even larger design to provide a wide IZ vs the 16"/50.

I'm thinking about composing a post summerizing the design evolution of the Bismarck class, as there seems to be some confusion.

Karl Heidenreich · Post by **Karl Heidenreich** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:05 pm

A work on the evolution of Bismarck design would be great and will clearify a lot of doubts.

Ulrich Rudofsky · Post by **Ulrich Rudofsky** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:14 pm

A lot has been written about that already in various books and journals.