Was the battleship Bismarck really the best of its time?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Was the battleship Bismarck really the best of its time?

Post by Steve Crandell »

Just a couple of comments about light AA rates of fire:

The 40mm Bofors as used by the USN was, according to Navweaps, capable of 80 to 90 rounds/min sustained fire. That was given as a British claim. A good loader could achieve about 24 rounds (120 rounds/min) without the gun stopping. I don't think a German loader could keep up with that loading one round at a time.

The Phalanx is a "bolt on" system and doesn't have deck penetration. It has a drum magazine attached to the mount.
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Was the battleship Bismarck really the best of its time?

Post by Thorsten Wahl »

Whatever the validity of the claims by ships' AA, some of the Swordfish were destroyed or damaged by JG 26 Fw 190 fighters which had to attack from astern, and lower their landing gear in order to fly slow enough to "draw a bead".
Scharnhorst was also attacked by Swordfishes in this case 1 aircraft was shot down by Scharnhorst; 3 were downed by fighters.


..............................
practical ROF of handloaded 3,7 cm SK C/30 40 - 55 shots per minute
according Handbuch für Admiralstabsoffiziere für an Bord befindliche Geschütze
as well as MDV 700 MDv 700 Seekriegsanleitung\Heft 3c LV Küste
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Was the battleship Bismarck really the best of its time?

Post by HMSVF »

Thorsten Wahl wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 6:19 pm
Whatever the validity of the claims by ships' AA, some of the Swordfish were destroyed or damaged by JG 26 Fw 190 fighters which had to attack from astern, and lower their landing gear in order to fly slow enough to "draw a bead".
Scharnhorst was also attacked by Swordfishes in this case 1 aircraft was shot down by Scharnhorst; 3 were downed by fighters.


..............................
practical ROF of handloaded 3,7 cm SK C/30 40 - 55 shots per minute
according Handbuch für Admiralstabsoffiziere für an Bord befindliche Geschütze
as well as MDV 700 MDv 700 Seekriegsanleitung\Heft 3c LV Küste
A telling statistic. As much as I'm fascinated by battleships and early 20th century naval history...

If I wanted to stop aircraft from attacking my squadron I'd want aircraft. Preferably lots of them. You have to admire the German pluck for Operation Cerebrus but it has British cock up written all over it. That's not to take anything away from the brave German crews or their ships, they rolled the dice and came through, but honestly? Sending 3 premier warships through a 26 mile wide stretch of water should have ended up with 3 vessels scoured over by scuba divers 70 years later.

6(?) Swordfish was a tragically laughable response and a complete waste of talented crews.
novicebutnice
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:28 am

Re: Was the battleship Bismarck really the best of its time?

Post by novicebutnice »

Steve Crandell wrote: Tue Aug 18, 2020 1:27 pm Just a couple of comments about light AA rates of fire:

The 40mm Bofors as used by the USN was, according to Navweaps, capable of 80 to 90 rounds/min sustained fire. That was given as a British claim. A good loader could achieve about 24 rounds (120 rounds/min) without the gun stopping. I don't think a German loader could keep up with that loading one round at a time.

The Phalanx is a "bolt on" system and doesn't have deck penetration. It has a drum magazine attached to the mount.
I don't think that the performance of the 37mm gun's had too much of an effect on the overall outcome of the Swordfish attack.

I base this on the report of the US South Dakota during the battle of the Santa Cruz Islands:

" the 5-inch, 1.1-inch, and 40 mm guns had difficulty tracking targets through the low clouds. The 20 mm guns, with their shorter effective range, were not hampered by the reduced visibility and accounted for two thirds of the aircraft South Dakota shot down, according to the ship's after action report"

One thing I don't recall reading in this thread is how the pilot (John Moffat) who dropped the torpedo that crippled Bismarck had by happenstance been assigned to AA duty on the Ark Royal

And had experienced first hand how hard it was to train the guns on very low aircraft, using this knowledge is why he knew to fly so low, and could get quite close, whereas the other pilots dropped their torpedo's at long range (due to the accurate AA fire)

Don't get me wrong the 37mm guns fitted to Bismarck were pretty much useless from my point of view, and should have been replaced by the 3.7 cm Flak 18/36/37
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Was the battleship Bismarck really the best of its time?

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,

Ploughing through the complex nomenclature of the German 37mm gun in Skiwiot's German Naval Guns I think the retention of the SK C/30 model, which was really a "quick firing gun" (Schnell Kanone) rather than an automatic cannon was because the Kriegsmarine was convinced of the overwhelming virtue of a triaxial gyro stabilised mount carrying all the crew as well. Redesigning the complex package to incorporate the Flak 36 or 37 which did feature a multi-round loading clip was evidently not considered feasible. Hence in 1940/41 Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were outfitted with the slower firing, manually loaded gun on the Dopp L C/30 mount.

While the Reichsmarine, later Kriegsmarine, was convinced of the requirement for 37mm stabilisation from 1930 onwards, in the Royal Navy such complex gyro-stabilised mounts were only developed after 1940 when Dutch warships with the Hazemeyer Bofors mount were evaluated. Even when the British STAAG mount was produced, the majority of light AA mounts were simpler, relying on the trainer and layer's co-ordination to compensate for vessel motion as well as target motion.

In German ships, later, when the Bofors-derived 4cm Flak 28 was introduced, largely replacing the SK C/30 model, they seem to be be fitted without the complex gyro-stabilised mount.

For novicebutnice, thanks for joining the conversation. It should be remembered that an aircraft carrier's AA armament is carried relatively high off the water as the flight deck is an obstruction to sky arcs, so John Moffat's experience does not necessarily apply to Bismarck. In the Sodak example, I don't see that 20mm gunners can see through cloud better than any other kind, however they and their hand controlled weapons can probably react faster to momentary glimpses of a target.
practical ROF of handloaded 3,7 cm SK C/30 40 - 55 shots per minute
according Handbuch für Admiralstabsoffiziere für an Bord befindliche Geschütze
as well as MDV 700 MDv 700 Seekriegsanleitung\Heft 3c LV Küste
Once again Thorsten brings hugely valuable contemporary information, but I personally still struggle to envisage how one loader and one ammunition carrier (standard crew per gun) could possibly feed 55 shells individually into the breech in one minute, ie very nearly one per second, continuously. Are we looking at a rate achieved for a few seconds only, extrapolated up to a rate per minute? Official reports sometimes include information the receiver wants to hear, rather the actuality.

Formula One pit crews can change all four tyres in 2 seconds, but that does not mean they can change 30 tyres in a minute? :D

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Was the battleship Bismarck really the best of its time?

Post by Steve Crandell »

I agree. I once saw an demonstration where an M-60 MBT fired three 105mm rounds in five seconds. The gun started loaded and the loader had a round in his hands and another wedged between his knees. Not exactly a "real life" scenario.
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Was the battleship Bismarck really the best of its time?

Post by HMSVF »

The gun started loaded and the loader had a round in his hands and another wedged between his knees
Firing half cocked? :lol:
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Was the battleship Bismarck really the best of its time?

Post by wadinga »

Hi All,

Watching a TV programme "World's Greatest Shipwrecks- History beneath the waves" which recycled a lot of footage from the Mearns expeditions to Hood and Bismarck there was an archive clip which I have never seen before of the single shot 37mm in action. One simple method of maintaining a higher rate of fire was shown. A luckless seaman had a heavy-looking satchel slung across his chest with something like 10 37mm shells stuffed nose down into it, which he pulled out and passed to the loader. Depending on how many satchel carriers there were, this low tech transport method would determine how long a higher rate of fire could be maintained.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
kevin32422
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Was the battleship Bismarck really the best of its time?

Post by kevin32422 »

I would say in the early years of the war the Bismarck was the best battleship up until maybe 1942 as the war went on the United States produced better built ships with better radar sets and fire control. The Japanese produced the biggest battleships of all time.
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Was the battleship Bismarck really the best of its time?

Post by Thorsten Wahl »

Once again Thorsten brings hugely valuable contemporary information, but I personally still struggle to envisage how one loader and one ammunition carrier (standard crew per gun) could possibly feed 55 shells individually into the breech in one minute, ie very nearly one per second, continuously. Are we looking at a rate achieved for a few seconds only, extrapolated up to a rate per minute? Official reports sometimes include information the receiver wants to hear, rather the actuality.
youtube "An Bord der Deutschen Schlachtschiffe Scharnhorst und Gneisenau HD 1939/40 - Dokumentation"
two sequences
at around 7:40 and 8:05
sustained high rate of fire depends on manual ammo transfer to the guns
exposed gun-crews
loading failures

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZwsO3yH_fA
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Was the battleship Bismarck really the best of its time?

Post by Thorsten Wahl »

kevin32422 wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:51 am 1942..United States produced better built ships, better radar better firecontrol
by what measurements
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
kevin32422
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Was the battleship Bismarck really the best of its time?

Post by kevin32422 »

Thorsten Wahl wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 11:26 am
kevin32422 wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:51 am 1942..United States produced better built ships, better radar better firecontrol
by what measurements
Let me clear that up some, the Us had better battleships with bigger main guns, better AA defense, radar and fire control got better as the war went on, also they US had better horizontal protection and dual purpose secondary guns. having said this Bismarck vs a South Dakota or maybe a North Carolina is too close to call not to mention who gets the first big hit.
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Was the battleship Bismarck really the best of its time?

Post by paul.mercer »

Hi Kevin,
Not sure about it being that close a call between Bismarck and South Dakota, the US ship mounted 12 x16" and was quite heavily armoured, don't forget that she was drafted to Scarpa Flow to take care of Tirpitz if she came out
User avatar
hans zurbriggen
Senior Member
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

Re: Was the battleship Bismarck really the best of its time?

Post by hans zurbriggen »

Hello Mr. kevin32422,
I agree US ships had better AA armament (very important aspect), but that's almost all.
Horizontal protection was at least equivalent against shells (at practical battle range), possibly better only against bombs.
US ships had much weaker vertical protection (worse than RN KGV's too), protected length, compartmentalisation and reserve of buoyancy not comparable to a "Bismarck", main guns heavier but (except Iowas) not really superior (with lower rate of fire). 1944 Tirpitz radar suite is at least equal (probably superior) to US Navy ships radars. Should I go on ?

Hello Mr. Mercer,
SD: Belt 310 mm (inclined 19°) without any further protection vs shell/splinters (vulnerable by BS 15" under 24 km); Deck 127-135 (excluding construction steel backings and non-decapping layers)
Bismarck: Belt 320 mm (vertical) + slope 110-120 mm (inclined 68°) + 45 mm TDS to counter possible splinters (immune at any practical distance); Decks 50 + 80-100 mm exploiting shell decapping effect in the very first layer.
SD had 'only' 9x16" guns and she was dispatched to counter Tirpitz together with a KGV class ship (+ a carrier), not in a 121 confrontation.

hans
Last edited by hans zurbriggen on Thu Nov 25, 2021 12:24 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Was the battleship Bismarck really the best of its time?

Post by Thorsten Wahl »

bigger is not always better the advantages on the US side are not as clear as it may appear

let me explain.
performance 16"/45 2700 lb AP projectile vs 38 cm/L52 800 kg PsGr
in metrics
33,7 km vs 35,6 km max range
1250 kg vs 800 kg projectile weight
18,5 kg vs 18,8 kg bursting charge

armor penetration at 20 kyard~18,2 km
vertical 448 mm vs 442 mm
horizontal nominally 109 mm vs <80 mm
(the problem US vertical penetration was an estimate calculated with US-empirical -Thompson F formula ( Buord Sk. 78841)) this formula overestimates performance at large angle of incidenc by a fairly large margin ((about 15%-20%)
there is no question the superheavy US- projectile posess an advantage du to its lower angle of incidence and greater weight against deckt targets. but its not the whopping advantage evidenced by the US fireeffect tables(ORD 653)

armor performance
thick FH armor at low obliquity
Based on US ballistic tests in thicknesses around 250 mm - 380 mm (10- 15") the best german plates tested exhibited an advantage of around 5% of critical velocity based on a comparision (calibrated on Buord Sk. 78841-Thompson F-fromula)

relatively thin RHA at high obliquity (up to 150 mm/ 6")
probably same quality as only very few results were available relative merits are difficult to deduce.
some results appears to be contradictionary) the british tested 4,75" and 3,5" non cemented plates against 8" APC at high obliquity and thes plates showed excellent results - only new british plates produced after WW2 had a similar critical limit.

Deck armor arrangement
the Germans tested their divided deck protection against full sized ballistic attack (38 cm and 40 cm) according to their assessment these divided system offer the same ballistic protection as single plates of the same thickness.
post war britsh tests led to the conclusion that british 14" - 16"shells in service were not able to defeat the "german scheme" at distances below 30 kyard(conclusion Tirpitz horizontal protection ballistically equivalent to 6" single plate).

The british tests gave an unmisticable tip that not every split of protection gave an advantage - "most battleships deckarrangements (their own formulation) gave not".

Side protection (backing neglected)
german 320 mm(inclined at the turrets) + 110/120 mm scarp(incl 68degree) + 45 mm torpedobulkhead (about 550 mm armor grade metal in series to be defeated
american ~310 mm inclined at about 18 degrees

protected citadel lenght significantly greater in the german case us ships had relatively more vulnerable areas susceptible to any attack

the american type of protection appears advantageous at larger distances but at these larger distances hit% became fairly small but not negligible.
its deck protection appears also better against air based thrown ordnance.


Air defense.
The german air defense was planned in 1934 as very strong , in accordance with the mission criteria of the ships, they didnt want to use their ships in exposed positions against massive aerial attacks. So there was no need for a massive increase in air defense power, except to ensure the preservation of fighting capabilities and binding of enemies forces...but the defense was only increased at the small calibers to ensure close range defense.

For sure an general increase was possibly.

This is a significant difference to american planning and use of its heavy warships during WW2.

--------------------------------------
Iowa class is an own category of warhips.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
Post Reply