UFO wrote:
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: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.
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.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.
Best regards.