Bismarck´s un ending arguments

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

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Sorry but the last few days I was very busy (and It seems the days to come also) so it was until now that I was able to join the forum again.

UFO wrote:
That does not necessarily say one design is better and the other worse. Warships are compromises, full of trade offs. One design may look much better here, subsequently much worse there.
I agree with you in that and all the other comments you made. I only want to clear up something about the "inherintace" of the Bayern-Baden Class on Bismarck. I know that a designer bureau seek in previous experience when they launched in a new design or project. In this sense it seems logical that the Bayern-Baden Class is, in many ways, the "ancestor" of the Bismarck. In what I don´t agree is the statement that it was the "purpose" of the designers to "rebuilt" the previous design with modifications due to new developments. Moreover, I don´t agree with what some say are "intrinsical" failures or faults in the design due to this "inheritance". Many persons, in public, state this things: the rudders and gear equipment wasn´t protected enough BECAUSE in the Bayern-Baden wasn´t protected enough and so on. I don´t agree with that position and because I don´t I do agree with UFO´s statement:
And – just for the record – no – USS South Dakota would have feared better under a similar torpedo hit because of her tail fins. Though build in for hydrodynamic reasons they would have done well in protecting her inner propellers and she would have probably kept reasonable steering abilities under such a blow.
Now, Marcelo said above that the idea of not building a deeper main belt was due to the fact that torpedoes run (and hit) much lower that the current depth of that structure. I agree with that and that´s why the Bismarck had what can be called an "anti torpedo" bulkhead behind the hull. But other battleship designs actually had a depeer belt which make one think about why the Germans considered that their´s was adequate. A Battleship is an armoured vessel supossed to withstand the punishment other similar enemy vessels can give to her. So, the more armour, the better. The PoW hit below the waterline proof this.
Best regards.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

The US design protected against diving shell hits, but didn't protect the outer hull. They kept the outer compartments filled with liquids to minimize fragmentation damage from hits on the outer hull, and to minimize list caused by flooding.

The Japanese design on Yamatos was similar to US, but protected the outer hull better because the armor belt was external until it merged into the bulge. The US Montanas would have used a similar design in that respect.

The Japanese design had a defect in the torpedo protection system, but that's a separate issue.
User avatar
Ulrich Rudofsky
Contributor & Translator
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:16 pm
Location: State of New York

Post by Ulrich Rudofsky »

So, the more armour, the better
No. You need to consider several parameters for protection and surviveability, of which armor is just one factor. You have to figure out how to deal with inevitable hits. Some of the thinking that went into designing German battleships is laid out in article by Breyer and by Hoyer http://www.kbismarck.com/articles.html As one famous British admiral said, speed is a form of armor.
Ulrich
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

About this whole dilema I was reading that the director´s cuppolas were connected with the calculation rooms by armoured shafts. Well, how that works really beats me. Did they need to have someone walking aft and forth from the director cuppola to the calculation rooms? Why? When the cuppola had the enemy at it´s sights then the crew send the information to the calculation room by which means? Did they send someone with the information (too slow) or they tell the calculator officers the data by a voice-tube or intercomunicator or what?
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

I don't know exactly how it worked on Bismarck, but typically the data would be transmitted electrically from the Director to the Fire Control Computer in the computing room. Obviously those cables are an important part of the system, so they are enclosed in an armored tube to protect them from damage. The tube is often large enough for a person to climb up to perform maintenance.
User avatar
Ulrich Rudofsky
Contributor & Translator
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:16 pm
Location: State of New York

Post by Ulrich Rudofsky »

The ships had telephones with specially assigned peronnel manning them: Befehlsübermittler or BÜ for short [order transmitter with earphones and microphone speaker funnels around their necks]. These BÜ's were everywhere dragging wires behind them.

Image
Ulrich
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

Ulrich Rudofsky wrote:The ships had telephones with specially assigned peronnel manning them: Befehlsübermittler or BÜ for short [order transmitter with earphones and microphone speaker funnels around their necks]. These BÜ's were everywhere dragging wires behind them.
Yes, that's true of the US Navy as well, but the transmission of bearings and ranges from FC equipment goes directly into the FC system and doesn't rely on people's voices. Spotting corrections probably do.
User avatar
Ulrich Rudofsky
Contributor & Translator
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:16 pm
Location: State of New York

Post by Ulrich Rudofsky »

I think all the fire control was relayed with analog cranks and dials. The schematic is from Paul Schmalenbach's book: Die Geschichte der Deutschen Schiffsarillerie, 1993, Koehler Verlag [history of the German ship artillery]. Left is up to 1945. right is about 1958. I can translate the words for you.........
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b138/ ... enbach.jpg
Ulrich
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

Thanks Ulrich,

I can get a general idea from the drawing. :).

I think the original question, if I understood, was simply "what was the purpose of the communication tubes"? I tried to explain that, and from there we got into the specific mechanism for transmitting data. It seems similar to that used by the US Navy at that time.
User avatar
Ulrich Rudofsky
Contributor & Translator
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:16 pm
Location: State of New York

Post by Ulrich Rudofsky »

Weren't those armored ducts emergency shutes and cable protectors? Is that what he is asking about?
Ulrich
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

Ulrich Rudofsky wrote:Weren't those armored ducts emergency shutes and cable protectors? Is that what he is asking about?
That's my understanding, yes.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

That´s right. So, if the armoured shaft protected wiring then the firing data must be transmited via those wires from the cuppola to the calculator room.
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

Bgile wrote:I don't know exactly how it worked on Bismarck, but typically the data would be transmitted electrically from the Director to the Fire Control Computer in the computing room. Obviously those cables are an important part of the system, so they are enclosed in an armored tube to protect them from damage. The tube is often large enough for a person to climb up to perform maintenance.
LOL - circular discussion. This is what I said several posts ago.
WGarzke
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 1:12 am
Location: Montclair, Virginia, USA

Re: Rudder Hit

Post by WGarzke »

DHC-5 wrote:I want to come back to the rudder hit for a moment. If what we see today on the Bismarck is true. Where one rudder is gone and the second is twisted and jammed into the center screw, controlling heading with the port and starboard screws would be nearly impossible.
If you remove the rudders completely one can steer fairly effectively with the screws. Now take and lock the rudders to port or starboard one will find that steering with the screws is nearly impossible.

If I can fall back onto my aviation background in addition to some nautical experience, jamming a rudder no matter what it is installed on if you do not have enough asymmetrical power to over come the yaw from the rudder you will not be able to control your heading. What we need to know is what force the damage rudder would exert left or right and what force would have been exerted with differential power from the screws. Just some humble observations from a pilot and Bismarck novice.
I have read Dan Synder's reply and others in this forum and I will try to address these by subject matter. As many of you know I am a naval architect and have study the design and operation of the Bismarck for some 45 years. I have been in touch with some of the survivors, namely the Baron and Gerhard Junack.

On the rudders - The starboard rudder was not bent into the race of the center propeller by the torpedo hit. One has to carefully study the testimony of Gerhard Junack who I had some written correspondence with before his death. He claimed that he left the middle engine room with the shaft slowly turning. He made that statement in 1948 in an article in the Royal Institution of Naval Architects on the Bismarck by Dr. Oscar Parkes. If the rudder structure had been jammed into the center propeller as some have said, that shaft would not be turning at all after the torpedo hit. The torpedo hit the starboard rudder. Some debris from that rudder did enter the race of the centerline propeller, chipping its blades. This accounts for the raising of floor plates in the middle engine room. If you read the Baron's book on actions taken to steer the ship using the propellers, he does mention that the center shaft was used in that effort. I am convinced that when the ship hit bottom or slid down the slope of the seamount that rudder structure was bent into the propeller race. I have made this point to James Cameron. The nagging question is how did the port rudder become free and in doing so leave a clean hole that is not marred by any bending action as the rudder and its shaft left the ship. It is not clear just what was done in the damage control efforts after this hit. In talking with the Baron, he was not aware to the degree of the activities done to regain the steering ability. The Baron did have an opportunity to discuss this with Gerhard Junack, but one must understand that the Baron was not a technical man like Junack. His book was written from the perspective of an officer, not an engineer. I do believe that the options that he described in his book were some of the ideas advanced by desperate individuals wanting to see some sort of steering function restored. The use, for example, of a submarine to steer the ship is not possible - a 750-ton submarine providing the steering for a 50,000-ton battleship?

Speed of the Bismarck after the rudder damage. For a brief time (circa 0700) Junack was in the main propulsion control station on 27 May. He asked Captain Lindemann on what should be done with the propulsive power. Lindemann responded, "Ach, do what you like!" Junack was concerned over the turbines and ordered slow ahead. Now it is rather doubtful if the speed was more than 7 knots in that storm. That speed likely was less as the ship could not maneuver and was taking various headings due to wave action. In fact, the ship motions from yaw were very significant. Added to the roll and pitch, this would have made many persons seasick. Those motions would also play an important part in the gunnery battle.

William H. Garzke, Jr.
William H. Garzke, Jr.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Well, I call that a first hand answer.
Post Reply