How close was the final battle?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Mustang
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:29 am

Re: How close was the final battle?

Post by Mustang »

dunmunro wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:06 pm
Mustang wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 6:39 pm
dunmunro wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 5:33 pm

Admiral Tovey:


There's lots of info available about the action and you really need to read some of it.
That actually completely supports everything I said, the British ships would die at 30km as they lacked the range to engage. The Rodney was 32km maximum and 25km effective, KGV was irrelevant as it would be unable to penetrate.

As for the very low range of the bismarck, that's the same as saying it didn't exist or didn't work. That's a negligible range. It's shorter than an infantry mortar.

I'm sure you'll disagree but since there's no further point to make you can end the thread.

The logs on the Hood website are unavailable, would be interesting to see those.
Bismarck's radar had an effective range of about 25km as did KGV's. Maximum optical visibility was about 26000yds (~24km or ~13nm as per Tovey above). How is either RN battleship going to 'die at 30km'? I have already stated that Bismarck and PoW traded fire at ~30km and PoW's fire appears have been more accurate than Bismarck's, which was so inaccurate that PoW didn't realize she was being fired upon.

You are make wildly inaccurate assumptions that are not supported by the historical record and you keep repeating claims that are completely inaccurate even when those statements are shown to be false. KGV's 14in guns could penetrate Bismarck's decks (beyond ~30km), CT and firecontrol stations at any likely battle range.

One feature of Bismarck's 38cm magazine is that they were placed very high in the ship and therefore more vulnerable to plunging fire than those in the RN battleships, which were very low in the ship, and protected by deck armour that was impenetrable to Bismarck's 38cm guns.


13 miles is a unaided eye visual range. Searchlights extend this dramatically. Here.

Image

I admit it's a bad graph but it shows searchlights extend visibility by a factor of five. Basically, visibility is never an actual issue unless there is truly terrible conditions.

Now obviously you can just say this is wrong, but the entire point of having a searchlight is to do this, so that's why they had them.

KGV could not penetrate the main armor. I'm sure you are already familiar with the diagram and I have no need to post it, but the 145mm deck area where the 09:02 hit occurred would not be possible. If you disagree, this is just a diagram, there is nothing to discuss.

It's possible the bismarck also was unable to penetrate, but getting into penetration mostly favors the bismarck as it had the better guns in the first place.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: How close was the final battle?

Post by marcelo_malara »

Mustang wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:09 am
13 miles is a unaided eye visual range. Searchlights extend this dramatically. Here.

Image

I admit it's a bad graph but it shows searchlights extend visibility by a factor of five. Basically, visibility is never an actual issue unless there is truly terrible conditions.

Now obviously you can just say this is wrong, but the entire point of having a searchlight is to do this, so that's why they had them.

KGV could not penetrate the main armor. I'm sure you are already familiar with the diagram and I have no need to post it, but the 145mm deck area where the 09:02 hit occurred would not be possible. If you disagree, this is just a diagram, there is nothing to discuss.

It's possible the bismarck also was unable to penetrate, but getting into penetration mostly favors the bismarck as it had the better guns in the first place.
You are wrong here. To see a navigation light at 15 nm is one thing. To illuminate a ship 15 nm away with a searchlight is another. There is no way it can happen, and less in poor weather, water drops in the air would not allow the light rays to pass thru. Searchlights were intended for night fighting at CLOSE distance.
Mustang
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:29 am

Re: How close was the final battle?

Post by Mustang »

marcelo_malara wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:25 am
Mustang wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:09 am
13 miles is a unaided eye visual range. Searchlights extend this dramatically. Here.

Image

I admit it's a bad graph but it shows searchlights extend visibility by a factor of five. Basically, visibility is never an actual issue unless there is truly terrible conditions.

Now obviously you can just say this is wrong, but the entire point of having a searchlight is to do this, so that's why they had them.

KGV could not penetrate the main armor. I'm sure you are already familiar with the diagram and I have no need to post it, but the 145mm deck area where the 09:02 hit occurred would not be possible. If you disagree, this is just a diagram, there is nothing to discuss.

It's possible the bismarck also was unable to penetrate, but getting into penetration mostly favors the bismarck as it had the better guns in the first place.
You are wrong here. To see a navigation light at 15 nm is one thing. To illuminate a ship 15 nm away with a searchlight is another. There is no way it can happen, and less in poor weather, water drops in the air would not allow the light rays to pass thru. Searchlights were intended for night fighting at CLOSE distance.
There's no fundamental difference. If there is anything reflective on the ship, there's no mathematical difference between seeing a searchlight and it reflecting off something else.

Unless they made an effort to cover all the windows and never put anything reflective out- in which case they couldnt see anything either- then you could spot the ship.

I realize this is an awkward way to do things, but even if it did close to 24km the 14in guns were unable to penetrate as I said.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: How close was the final battle?

Post by marcelo_malara »

Moreover you are ignoring the curvature of the Earth. You need both ships having a mast height of 25 m each to see just the top of the other at 25 km.

http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm
Mustang
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:29 am

Re: How close was the final battle?

Post by Mustang »

marcelo_malara wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:33 am Moreover you are ignoring the curvature of the Earth. You need both ships having a mast height of 25 m each to see just the top of the other at 25 km.

http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm
You actually need one of the ships 25m to see at 25km, if both ships are 25m then it adds to 50km. It is additive.

I don't see this cited anywhere but it is common sense.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: How close was the final battle?

Post by marcelo_malara »

Mustang wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:32 am

There's no fundamental difference. If there is anything reflective on the ship, there's no mathematical difference between seeing a searchlight and it reflecting off something else.

Unless they made an effort to cover all the windows and never put anything reflective out- in which case they couldnt see anything either- then you could spot the ship.

I realize this is an awkward way to do things, but even if it did close to 24km the 14in guns were unable to penetrate as I said.
Yes there is. Can not put into words why but, I can spot a car´s front lights 500 m away, but for sure he won´t see me.
Mustang
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:29 am

Re: How close was the final battle?

Post by Mustang »

marcelo_malara wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:37 am
Mustang wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:32 am

There's no fundamental difference. If there is anything reflective on the ship, there's no mathematical difference between seeing a searchlight and it reflecting off something else.

Unless they made an effort to cover all the windows and never put anything reflective out- in which case they couldnt see anything either- then you could spot the ship.

I realize this is an awkward way to do things, but even if it did close to 24km the 14in guns were unable to penetrate as I said.
Yes there is. Can not put into words why but, I can spot a car´s front lights 500 m away, but for sure he won´t see me.
So the entire fog light industry is a scam? Surely, we need to sue them.

Like I said, it's approximately a factor of five improvement- if visibility is 100m the lights will only get you to 500m. Furthermore car lights are very weak compared to a battleship.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: How close was the final battle?

Post by marcelo_malara »

Mustang wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:36 am
marcelo_malara wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:33 am Moreover you are ignoring the curvature of the Earth. You need both ships having a mast height of 25 m each to see just the top of the other at 25 km.

http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm
You actually need one of the ships 25m to see at 25km, if both ships are 25m then it adds to 50km. It is additive.

I don't see this cited anywhere but it is common sense.
Sorry, it is not lineal. 25 m height will give a distance to the horizon of 17 km, both ships will see each other at 34 km, not 50 km.
Mustang
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:29 am

Re: How close was the final battle?

Post by Mustang »

marcelo_malara wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:44 am
Mustang wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:36 am
marcelo_malara wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:33 am Moreover you are ignoring the curvature of the Earth. You need both ships having a mast height of 25 m each to see just the top of the other at 25 km.

http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm
You actually need one of the ships 25m to see at 25km, if both ships are 25m then it adds to 50km. It is additive.

I don't see this cited anywhere but it is common sense.
Sorry, it is not lineal. 25 m height will give a distance to the horizon of 17 km, both ships will see each other at 34 km, not 50 km.
I agree, and 34km is a perfectly ideal range for the bismarck to engage.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: How close was the final battle?

Post by marcelo_malara »

Mustang wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:40 am
marcelo_malara wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:37 am

So the entire fog light industry is a scam? Surely, we need to sue them.

Like I said, it's approximately a factor of five improvement- if visibility is 100m the lights will only get you to 500m. Furthermore car lights are very weak compared to a battleship.
Sure, but the distances are others too!
Mustang
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:29 am

Re: How close was the final battle?

Post by Mustang »

marcelo_malara wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:48 am

Sure, but the distances are others too!
I have nothing else to say, I gave the diagram. If your fog light has issues talk to your mechanic.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: How close was the final battle?

Post by dunmunro »

Mustang wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:09 am
dunmunro wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:06 pm
Mustang wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 6:39 pm

That actually completely supports everything I said, the British ships would die at 30km as they lacked the range to engage. The Rodney was 32km maximum and 25km effective, KGV was irrelevant as it would be unable to penetrate.

As for the very low range of the bismarck, that's the same as saying it didn't exist or didn't work. That's a negligible range. It's shorter than an infantry mortar.

I'm sure you'll disagree but since there's no further point to make you can end the thread.

The logs on the Hood website are unavailable, would be interesting to see those.
Bismarck's radar had an effective range of about 25km as did KGV's. Maximum optical visibility was about 26000yds (~24km or ~13nm as per Tovey above). How is either RN battleship going to 'die at 30km'? I have already stated that Bismarck and PoW traded fire at ~30km and PoW's fire appears have been more accurate than Bismarck's, which was so inaccurate that PoW didn't realize she was being fired upon.

You are make wildly inaccurate assumptions that are not supported by the historical record and you keep repeating claims that are completely inaccurate even when those statements are shown to be false. KGV's 14in guns could penetrate Bismarck's decks (beyond ~30km), CT and firecontrol stations at any likely battle range.

One feature of Bismarck's 38cm magazine is that they were placed very high in the ship and therefore more vulnerable to plunging fire than those in the RN battleships, which were very low in the ship, and protected by deck armour that was impenetrable to Bismarck's 38cm guns.


13 miles is a unaided eye visual range. Searchlights extend this dramatically. Here.

Image

I admit it's a bad graph but it shows searchlights extend visibility by a factor of five. Basically, visibility is never an actual issue unless there is truly terrible conditions.

Now obviously you can just say this is wrong, but the entire point of having a searchlight is to do this, so that's why they had them.

KGV could not penetrate the main armor. I'm sure you are already familiar with the diagram and I have no need to post it, but the 145mm deck area where the 09:02 hit occurred would not be possible. If you disagree, this is just a diagram, there is nothing to discuss.

It's possible the bismarck also was unable to penetrate, but getting into penetration mostly favors the bismarck as it had the better guns in the first place.
Tovey's estimate of visibility was the DAYLIGHT visibility due to the atmospheric conditions just prior to the commencement of the action, and that visibility was via high powered binoculars and telescopes!

The hit claimed at 0902 wasn't on Bismarck's deck armour, which in any event, wasn't penetrable by Rodney's 16in guns either (about 16K yds for both Rodney and KGV) because of the very flat trajectory at that range. The hit(s) supposedly disabled Bismarck's thinly armoured upper forward fire control station and the lower FC station in the CT. Additionally, it's claimed that the forward turrets were knocked out... Anyways the armour in these areas were completely penetrable by either 14 or 16in AP rounds at that range.
Mustang
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:29 am

Re: How close was the final battle?

Post by Mustang »

dunmunro wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:28 am
Mustang wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:09 am
dunmunro wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 10:06 pm

Bismarck's radar had an effective range of about 25km as did KGV's. Maximum optical visibility was about 26000yds (~24km or ~13nm as per Tovey above). How is either RN battleship going to 'die at 30km'? I have already stated that Bismarck and PoW traded fire at ~30km and PoW's fire appears have been more accurate than Bismarck's, which was so inaccurate that PoW didn't realize she was being fired upon.

You are make wildly inaccurate assumptions that are not supported by the historical record and you keep repeating claims that are completely inaccurate even when those statements are shown to be false. KGV's 14in guns could penetrate Bismarck's decks (beyond ~30km), CT and firecontrol stations at any likely battle range.

One feature of Bismarck's 38cm magazine is that they were placed very high in the ship and therefore more vulnerable to plunging fire than those in the RN battleships, which were very low in the ship, and protected by deck armour that was impenetrable to Bismarck's 38cm guns.


13 miles is a unaided eye visual range. Searchlights extend this dramatically. Here.

Image

I admit it's a bad graph but it shows searchlights extend visibility by a factor of five. Basically, visibility is never an actual issue unless there is truly terrible conditions.

Now obviously you can just say this is wrong, but the entire point of having a searchlight is to do this, so that's why they had them.

KGV could not penetrate the main armor. I'm sure you are already familiar with the diagram and I have no need to post it, but the 145mm deck area where the 09:02 hit occurred would not be possible. If you disagree, this is just a diagram, there is nothing to discuss.

It's possible the bismarck also was unable to penetrate, but getting into penetration mostly favors the bismarck as it had the better guns in the first place.
Tovey's estimate of visibility was the DAYLIGHT visibility due to the atmospheric conditions just prior to the commencement of the action, and that visibility was via high powered binoculars and telescopes!

The hit claimed at 0902 wasn't on Bismarck's deck armour, which in any event, wasn't penetrable by Rodney's 16in guns either (about 16K yds for both Rodney and KGV) because of the very flat trajectory at that range. The hit(s) supposedly disabled Bismarck's thinly armoured upper forward fire control station and the lower FC station in the CT. Additionally, it's claimed that the forward turrets were knocked out... Anyways the armour in these areas were completely penetrable by either 14 or 16in AP rounds at that range.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it was a single salvo with multiple hits. You're correct both ships were incapable of penetrating the main deck armor- actually they were incapable of penetrating it at any effective range, aside from a tiny window around 20km.

Sorry to change from deck to side penetration, but that's the only difference here. The side armor of the bridge was 350mm. The multiple hits were on the open bridge, and some were on the side, so we know it was Rodney.

The Rodney was able to penetrate this armor at 14km. The King George could do it at 12km. The engagement was said to have happened at 20,000 yards, which is closer to what the Rodney was, combined with the Rodney being closer.

It's possible all the accounts are wrong and King George was close enough to get this shot, but all the evidence points to Rodney being closer and having the penetration needed at the time it happened. If it was the King George then it would have to spend several minutes in the fire zone to get there and bismarck could easily kill it first.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: How close was the final battle?

Post by dunmunro »

Mustang wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 7:12 am
dunmunro wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:28 am
Mustang wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:09 am



13 miles is a unaided eye visual range. Searchlights extend this dramatically. Here.

Image

I admit it's a bad graph but it shows searchlights extend visibility by a factor of five. Basically, visibility is never an actual issue unless there is truly terrible conditions.

Now obviously you can just say this is wrong, but the entire point of having a searchlight is to do this, so that's why they had them.

KGV could not penetrate the main armor. I'm sure you are already familiar with the diagram and I have no need to post it, but the 145mm deck area where the 09:02 hit occurred would not be possible. If you disagree, this is just a diagram, there is nothing to discuss.

It's possible the bismarck also was unable to penetrate, but getting into penetration mostly favors the bismarck as it had the better guns in the first place.
Tovey's estimate of visibility was the DAYLIGHT visibility due to the atmospheric conditions just prior to the commencement of the action, and that visibility was via high powered binoculars and telescopes!

The hit claimed at 0902 wasn't on Bismarck's deck armour, which in any event, wasn't penetrable by Rodney's 16in guns either (about 16K yds for both Rodney and KGV) because of the very flat trajectory at that range. The hit(s) supposedly disabled Bismarck's thinly armoured upper forward fire control station and the lower FC station in the CT. Additionally, it's claimed that the forward turrets were knocked out... Anyways the armour in these areas were completely penetrable by either 14 or 16in AP rounds at that range.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it was a single salvo with multiple hits. You're correct both ships were incapable of penetrating the main deck armor- actually they were incapable of penetrating it at any effective range, aside from a tiny window around 20km.

Sorry to change from deck to side penetration, but that's the only difference here. The side armor of the bridge was 350mm. The multiple hits were on the open bridge, and some were on the side, so we know it was Rodney.

The Rodney was able to penetrate this armor at 14km. The King George could do it at 12km. The engagement was said to have happened at 20,000 yards, which is closer to what the Rodney was, combined with the Rodney being closer.

It's possible all the accounts are wrong and King George was close enough to get this shot, but all the evidence points to Rodney being closer and having the penetration needed at the time it happened. If it was the King George then it would have to spend several minutes in the fire zone to get there and bismarck could easily kill it first.
Norfolk's claim was for at least two hits at ~0902 from at least two salvos.

RN testing on 14in armour (~350mm) showed that 14in AP rounds could penetrate it (with damage to the shell) at 1750fps at 30deg striking angle and perforate it (pass a 14in shell intact though the armour) at ~1850fps and 30deg target angle. This means that at ~16k yds a 14in AP shell could have done all the damage claimed. Additionally, Bismarck's turrets had an upper facet to the face plate that was only 180mm thick and this was easily penetrated by the 14in AP round at any range, under about 45degs striking angle.
Last edited by dunmunro on Tue May 30, 2023 8:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mustang
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun May 21, 2023 7:29 am

Re: How close was the final battle?

Post by Mustang »

dunmunro wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 8:04 am
Mustang wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 7:12 am
dunmunro wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 5:28 am

Tovey's estimate of visibility was the DAYLIGHT visibility due to the atmospheric conditions just prior to the commencement of the action, and that visibility was via high powered binoculars and telescopes!

The hit claimed at 0902 wasn't on Bismarck's deck armour, which in any event, wasn't penetrable by Rodney's 16in guns either (about 16K yds for both Rodney and KGV) because of the very flat trajectory at that range. The hit(s) supposedly disabled Bismarck's thinly armoured upper forward fire control station and the lower FC station in the CT. Additionally, it's claimed that the forward turrets were knocked out... Anyways the armour in these areas were completely penetrable by either 14 or 16in AP rounds at that range.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it was a single salvo with multiple hits. You're correct both ships were incapable of penetrating the main deck armor- actually they were incapable of penetrating it at any effective range, aside from a tiny window around 20km.

Sorry to change from deck to side penetration, but that's the only difference here. The side armor of the bridge was 350mm. The multiple hits were on the open bridge, and some were on the side, so we know it was Rodney.

The Rodney was able to penetrate this armor at 14km. The King George could do it at 12km. The engagement was said to have happened at 20,000 yards, which is closer to what the Rodney was, combined with the Rodney being closer.

It's possible all the accounts are wrong and King George was close enough to get this shot, but all the evidence points to Rodney being closer and having the penetration needed at the time it happened. If it was the King George then it would have to spend several minutes in the fire zone to get there and bismarck could easily kill it first.
RN testing on 14in armour (~350mm) showed that 14in AP rounds could penetrate it (with damage to the shell) at 1750fps at 30deg striking angle and perforate it (pass a 14in shell intact though the armour) at ~1850fps and 30deg target angle. This means that at ~16k yds a 14in AP shell could have done all the damage claimed. Additionally, Bismarck's turrets had an upper facet to the face plate that was only 180mm thick and this was easily penetrated by the 14in AP round at any range, under about 45degs striking angle.
But we are not talking about the turrets, and the upper face plate was hard to hit and was never an issue.

The 14in could just barely penetrate at 16k yards, there was additional armor behind the front plate and it wouldn't penetrate. I believe this was already discussed.
Post Reply