How close was the final battle?

[Mustang]

Sorry if this has been asked before.

If the bismarcks salvo at 8:50 was a few meters closer, would it have struck the Rodney's fire control and won? The King George was weaker and would be at a disadvantage.

Was all of history decided by a few meters?

[paul.mercer]

Sorry if this has been asked before.

If the bismarcks salvo at 8:50 was a few meters closer, would it have struck the Rodney's fire control and won? The King George was weaker and would be at a disadvantage.

Was all of history decided by a few meters?

I don't think it was close at all, Bismarck could only turn in circles at low speed, Rodney was old, but still a well armoured ship with powerful armament and KGV had most of her guns working so it would have only been a matter of time, particularly as range came down to almost point blank.
Remember, besides Rodney and KGV, there were other RN ships converging on the scene, from the moment of the torpedo smashing her rudders, Bismarck was doomed.

[Mustang]

Sorry if this has been asked before.

If the bismarcks salvo at 8:50 was a few meters closer, would it have struck the Rodney's fire control and won? The King George was weaker and would be at a disadvantage.

Was all of history decided by a few meters?

I don't think it was close at all, Bismarck could only turn in circles at low speed, Rodney was old, but still a well armoured ship with powerful armament and KGV had most of her guns working so it would have only been a matter of time, particularly as range came down to almost point blank.
Remember, besides Rodney and KGV, there were other RN ships converging on the scene, from the moment of the torpedo smashing her rudders, Bismarck was doomed.

I guess what I'm asking is, how material was the rudder to the outcome?

I can see that fighting two ships is harder than one, even though bismarck had better gunnery range than both ships. But the rudder doesn't seem material, as far as I can tell in the final engagement the Bismarck sailed in a straight line forward while the British "crossed the T". If it was sailing in a circle it would actually be better because the aft guns would be exposed.

Also, we don't know if the aft guns on any of the ships were actually operational. Because of power distribution they might have only powered some guns, we don't know if maneuvering the ship to expose other guns would make a difference.

Lastly, evasive maneuvers make gunnery less accurate on both sides so I'm not sure if they would have affected the battle. I dont see evidence the rudder was the decisive issue.

[Patrick McWilliams]

Bismarck hitting Rodney would have made little difference in the end, for the reasons Paul has noted. Even if Rodney's central fire control had been eliminated, I assume the turrets could still have operated under local control and blast away from what was point-blank distance for a battleship. The British were facing a lumbering sitting duck that could barely steer and was listing to one side. You may also know that Duke of York escaped a potential direct hit from Bismarck when the latter's rear 15" turret (Dura) had its directors blown away when the Baron had the enemy in his sights and was about to zero in for firing. Once again, though, a hit from Bismarck – which could cause a fair bit of damage – would not have led to the ship escaping.

[Mustang]

Bismarck hitting Rodney would have made little difference in the end, for the reasons Paul has noted. Even if Rodney's central fire control had been eliminated, I assume the turrets could still have operated under local control and blast away from what was point-blank distance for a battleship. The British were facing a lumbering sitting duck that could barely steer and was listing to one side. You may also know that Duke of York escaped a potential direct hit from Bismarck when the latter's rear 15" turret (Dura) had its directors blown away when the Baron had the enemy in his sights and was about to zero in for firing. Once again, though, a hit from Bismarck – which could cause a fair bit of damage – would not have led to the ship escaping.

I'm not sure if Rodney was capable of firing under local control but OK. They were not comparable ships, the Bismarck was newer.

Assuming the Bismarcks guns worked it out ranged the Rodney enough for about two minutes of firing. This should have given it enough time to develop a gunnery solution. We can get into the detailed math if you want but this is an obvious problem.

If the bismarck got a gunnery solution first then the Rodney would take 5 or 10 hits within minutes and be in bad shape. The KGV was rivet construction and of unknown survivability, and it had shorter range, and even if "only" the Rodney was disabled that would impair the royal navy.

So ignoring the scenario where Rodney takes a single critical hit and dies immediately, if the Bismarcks guns actually worked to spec then it would have about a 70% chance of winning as far as I can tell. Of course the guns did not work so it had a 0% chance in reality.

[marcelo_malara]

Bismarck hitting Rodney would have made little difference in the end, for the reasons Paul has noted. Even if Rodney's central fire control had been eliminated, I assume the turrets could still have operated under local control and blast away from what was point-blank distance for a battleship. The British were facing a lumbering sitting duck that could barely steer and was listing to one side. You may also know that Duke of York escaped a potential direct hit from Bismarck when the latter's rear 15" turret (Dura) had its directors blown away when the Baron had the enemy in his sights and was about to zero in for firing. Once again, though, a hit from Bismarck – which could cause a fair bit of damage – would not have led to the ship escaping.

I'm not sure if Rodney was capable of firing under local control but OK. They were not comparable ships, the Bismarck was newer.

Assuming the Bismarcks guns worked it out ranged the Rodney enough for about two minutes of firing. This should have given it enough time to develop a gunnery solution. We can get into the detailed math if you want but this is an obvious problem.

If the bismarck got a gunnery solution first then the Rodney would take 5 or 10 hits within minutes and be in bad shape. The KGV was rivet construction and of unknown survivability, and it had shorter range, and even if "only" the Rodney was disabled that would impair the royal navy.

So ignoring the scenario where Rodney takes a single critical hit and dies immediately, if the Bismarcks guns actually worked to spec then it would have about a 70% chance of winning as far as I can tell. Of course the guns did not work so it had a 0% chance in reality.

I think that the erratic (not exactly circular) track of Bismarck prevented she from hitting at long range. In Denmark Strait, with a perfectly controllable ship, she hit Hood with one out of 24 shells fired (?, 6 salvos of 4 guns?), what gives a standard 5% hit rate. With the ship yawing and rolling not even this would be possible.

Regards

[Mustang]

Bismarck hitting Rodney would have made little difference in the end, for the reasons Paul has noted. Even if Rodney's central fire control had been eliminated, I assume the turrets could still have operated under local control and blast away from what was point-blank distance for a battleship. The British were facing a lumbering sitting duck that could barely steer and was listing to one side. You may also know that Duke of York escaped a potential direct hit from Bismarck when the latter's rear 15" turret (Dura) had its directors blown away when the Baron had the enemy in his sights and was about to zero in for firing. Once again, though, a hit from Bismarck – which could cause a fair bit of damage – would not have led to the ship escaping.

I'm not sure if Rodney was capable of firing under local control but OK. They were not comparable ships, the Bismarck was newer.

Assuming the Bismarcks guns worked it out ranged the Rodney enough for about two minutes of firing. This should have given it enough time to develop a gunnery solution. We can get into the detailed math if you want but this is an obvious problem.

If the bismarck got a gunnery solution first then the Rodney would take 5 or 10 hits within minutes and be in bad shape. The KGV was rivet construction and of unknown survivability, and it had shorter range, and even if "only" the Rodney was disabled that would impair the royal navy.

So ignoring the scenario where Rodney takes a single critical hit and dies immediately, if the Bismarcks guns actually worked to spec then it would have about a 70% chance of winning as far as I can tell. Of course the guns did not work so it had a 0% chance in reality.

I think that the erratic (not exactly circular) track of Bismarck prevented she from hitting at long range. In Denmark Strait, with a perfectly controllable ship, she hit Hood with one out of 24 shells fired (?, 6 salvos of 4 guns?), what gives a standard 5% hit rate. With the ship yawing and rolling not even this would be possible.

Regards

I would like further analysis on this. They were in the same seas, there's no reason Bismarck and Rodney would differ.

I see the rudder problem, but I also don't see any evidence Rodney worked out a system to control its maneuvers with a rudder or that was ever a factor. I see no evidence that the rudder was a factor or the Rodney somehow integrated its rudder controls with the fire controls.

So far the argument against boils down to the bismarcks guns or its fire control not working, I'm not seeing the rudder being an issue, if there is specific research on any of these topics I would read it.

[hans zurbriggen]

Hello,
I think what Mr. Mercer and Mr. Malara say is correct: it was rudder damage that prevented Bismarck superior fire control from hitting and made her a sitting duck, unable to maintain a valid fire solution and unable to maneuver.

Rodney and KGV opened fire at 08:47 and 08:48 respectively, without getting close to BS. BS opened at 08:49 and straddled already at 3rd salvo (20 meters from Rodney). However, erratic own course (plus abnormal pitching, rolling and jawing of a ship already full of water and making 6 to 9 knots in heavy seas, that affected BS more than British ships, still able to steer) did not allow to switch to "fire for effect" (as it was the case at Denmark Strait) and target was lost (also, but not mainly, due to Rodney evasive moves).
British could check fire only later (after 08:55 - 09:00 depending on reports/accounts). In 5-10 minutes "fire for effect" IMHO undamaged BS could have possibly put one of her opponents out of action already; then outcome would have been highly unpredictable, also because Rodney was unable to match BS speed and could have been left behind, while KGV had severe reliability problems to her turrets (a negative peak of 20% efficiency was recorded).

Without rudder hit, odds would have been very different: despite large superiority, British would have had to fight hard to win and even harder to sink BS, even if we will never know for sure as lucky hits would have been always possible on both sides.

hans

[Mustang]

Hello,
I think what Mr. Mercer and Mr. Malara say is correct: it was rudder damage that prevented Bismarck superior fire control from hitting and made her a sitting duck, unable to maintain a valid fire solution and unable to maneuver.

Rodney and KGV opened fire at 08:47 and 08:48 respectively, without getting close to BS. BS opened at 08:49 and straddled already at 3rd salvo (20 meters from Rodney). However, erratic own movements (plus pitching, rolling and jawing of a ship making 6 to 9 knots in heavy seas, that affected BS more than British ships, still able to steer) did not allow to switch to "fire for effect" (as it was the case at Denmark Strait) and target was lost (also but not mainly due to Rodney evasive moves).
British could check fire only later (after 08:55 - 09:00 depending on reports/accounts). In 5-10 minutes "fire for effect" IMHO BS could have possibly put one of her opponents out of action; then outcome would have been unpredictable, also because Rodney was unable to match BS speed and could have been left behind and KGV had reliability problems to her turrets (a negative peak of 20% efficiency was recorded).

Without rudder hit, odds would have been very different: despite large superiority, British would have had to fight hard to win and even harder to sink BS, even if we will never know for sure as lucky hits would have been always possible on both sides.

hans

I'm not seeing any evidence that any ship ever considered the rudder a factor in fire control. Pitching and rolling are out of control of the rudder. It would only reduce yawing which is 1/3 the motion of the ship. Would this make a difference? Why was bismarck the only vessel that ever had this issue despite thousands of years of naval warfare of ships with various mechanical failures?

But I agree with core the point that some part of the bismarck was non working and thus they were unable to engage effectively.

[hans zurbriggen]

Hello Mr. Mustang,

Pitching and rolling are out of control of the rudder.

I respectfully disagree: very slowly sailing ship in heavy seas pitches, rolls and jaws much more than high speed sailing vessels (see e.g. a ship stopped at see) and cannot take any course that minimize such movements. Plus BS had water inside that made these movements unpredictable fro fire control system. The slow speed was a direct consequence of rudder damage (because any higher speed would have made her turning in circles).

Fire control systems (even very efficient as on BS) are unable to cope with erratic own turns and movements of vessel when so severe.

hans

[Mustang]

Hello Mr. Mustang,

Pitching and rolling are out of control of the rudder.

I respectfully disagree: very slowly sailing ship in heavy seas pitches, rolls and jaws much more than high speed sailing vessels (see e.g. a ship stopped at see) and cannot take any course that minimize such movements. The slow speed was a direct consequence of rudder damage (because any higher speed would have made her turning in circles).

Fire control systems (even very efficient as on BS) are unable to cope with erratic own turns and movements of vessel when so severe.

hans

I see, that makes more sense. It's a speed issue and not the rudder itself.

Using this site

http://www.kbismarck.com/bismarck-last-battle.html

From 9:02 to 9:17 Rodney traveled two miles. Eight knots?

Bismarck traveled marginally less distance.

So I accept and understand your argument, it's just surprising that a difference of less than five knots was enough to decide the entire battle.

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
Surely the rudder issue must come into the question? If a ship cannot steer the course it wants or needs to take during an action then that ship must be at a severe disadvantage - add not being able to use its speed to turn in order to put off the aim of its opponents and that ship is in a lot of trouble.
Of course there is always the chance of a 'lucky shot' that might turn the tide of the battle -as with Hood, but once Bismarck's rudder was damaged there was only likely to be one outcome particularly as she was trying to fight two battleships with a combined firepower of 19 heavy guns with other RN ships converging on the area.

[Herr Nilsson]

Using this site

http://www.kbismarck.com/bismarck-last-battle.html

From 9:02 to 9:17 Rodney traveled two miles. Eight knots?

I measured about 2.5 nm between 9:02 and 9:09 ~ 21.5 knots for Rodney on the map.

[Mustang]

Using this site

http://www.kbismarck.com/bismarck-last-battle.html

From 9:02 to 9:17 Rodney traveled two miles. Eight knots?

I measured about 2.5 nm between 9:02 and 9:09 ~ 21.5 knots for Rodney on the map.

I suppose they could have changed speeds, that's fine. But the speed itself making the ship more accurate rather than less is odd. Mathematically acceleration is unaffected by how fast you're going, if you are going a certain speed then it will be slower by the same amount. The only difference is if you're too slow you just wouldn't move at all.

But again, there could be some minor factor or any other reason the equipment didn't work, so I don't see a need to debate further.

[Herr Nilsson]

Rodney didn't change speed, your measurement is simply wrong. Rodney traveled approximately 5 nm between 9:02 and 9:17.