All myths solved

[lwd]

That seams to be the story that consistently emerges. It's possible the hight and size of the water colums made them a better radar target. AT 20,000 yards the buld of the Yamashiro should have been in the beam but perhaps a surface effect. I think it said in the article I referanced that the Yamashiro had slowed down quite a bit due to the torpedo hit. Perhaps the radar couldn' differentiiate the ship from the surface return. Or perhaps the story is wrong.

[VeenenbergR]

If the Rodney and KGV fired over 750 heavy shells between 8.47 and say 10.12 this is 85 minutes or 10 shells per minute or 1 broadside per minute by either Rodney OR KGV. That is relatively slow. Suppose Bismarck also had this slow rate because of exhaustion, damage a.s.o.
Bismarck then would have fired about between 150 and 200 shells in her last engagement.

Question: both British ships fired only half of their stock, why was that?

Bismarck was hit by some 70 heavy shells, 10% of the total fired. 1 hit per minute actually. 20-25 (most deadly) hits in the first part and 45-50 in the latter part of the engagement, more at close range, when Bismarcks main battery was already silent. In the beginning they came in and plunged on the turret tops (2-4), the upper barbette rings (2-3), CT (2), weather deck (4-5), secundairy armament (some), fire directors (1?), forecastle and superstructure (some). Of all these about 6 or 7 could have hit the main turret roofs, with clear knock out results.
There is NO indicationm that the few heavy hits which plunged in the superstructure severed all communiction cables or penetrated the armoured shafts.

The latter rain of shells hit the belt, turret sides and superstructure. Most of these 45-50 hits were repulsed by the armour, except for 4 shells of Ropdney, which eventually managed to penetrate the belt with heavy loss of life amoung the sheltering crew (most of these "heavy casualty hits" occured late in the battle). Most of which hit the superstructure penetrated and failed to detonate, except those against the CT and turret sides. Here one back-plate flew off.
The side armour of 5 meters high did its job in defending the ship for still more damage inside, mainly beause Rodney closed the distance.

Many of the armoured rangefinder stations were hit by 8 and 6 inch shells.

So Bismarck was probably silenced by relative few heavy shells (10) which knocked out the main gun turrets and CT and some 8 and 6 inch shells which did their work against the 3 range/radar stations.

No shells seemed to reach the main armor belt. All crew which escaped the machinery and control rooms reported that they were in perfect order.
Even most rooms beneath the weather deck were intact. Escape alleys were seldom blocked.

[Lutscha]

3 main calibre hits from Rodney and/or KGV hit the main belt, 2 penetrated. There were no rejections of main calibre hits.

Btw, you mentioned 31.5kn top speed for BS which is about a knot more than she could ever hope of achieving. She could reach about 30kn at maximum HP and load but denfinetly not 1,5kn more.

[VeenenbergR]

@Lutscha.

3 hits on the sides: these are pretty few compared to the chance that Rodney and KGV would hit any part of the sides (and also the part under sea level). The drawings of the escapingcrew of Bismarck showed more damage on her sides and not the 3 or 4 (relative small) holes of the penetrations of Rodney (and KGV). I think the belt did its work in resisting a great part of all hits.

Of 70 probable hits (most after a flat trajectory) at least 50% (= 35) must have hit the side/belt anyhow and 50% the level above the weather deck. It seems not reasonable that only 3 or 4 hit the side and 66 or 67 the main turrets and superstructure.

I am curious to know what the other menbers know about the location of the hits. G&D and Ballard show the location of some 20 nasty hits/ yars, some probably on spots on the ship sides burried below the bottom (mud) and most of the others on the missing parts of the superstructure.
Ballard describes the hull-side as almost totally intact with exception of some penetrations and the broken stern. The hits are to be seen on the barbette rings, the forecastle, some 6 inch turrets, half a dozen holes in the deck and a big hole near the catapult. That is it. Not more.

[Lutscha]

3 hit on the main belt. Check Bill Jurens' comments:
viewtopic.php?p=9419&highlight=cameron#9419

[Tiornu]

There's a difference between hitting the main belt and hitting the ship's side. I don't believe I have ever seen a count of shells hitting the side above the main belt.
At Guadalcanal, Kirishima took about ten 16in hits to her side above the waterline, but only about four were anywhere near her main belt, and I can't say that even one actually hit the main belt above the waterline.

[lwd]

... plunged on the turret tops (2-4),...

Is there any evidence for this? I seam to recall that the hit by Rodney that immediately preceded the two turrets going out of action hit between them.

[Bgile]

I've never seen any evidence the turret tops where hit. In any case, they should be thick enough to stop heavy shells at that range. The front slopes were a weak point, but a small target.

As far as I know, one of the forward turrets was penetrated through it's faceplate by a shell from Rodney which presumably hit the back of the turret from the inside and knocked it out of the turret.

The upper belt wasn't nearly thick enough to stop battleship shells at any range, and I think I've seen accounts describing the area between the upper and lower armored decks as being absolutely wrecked and very difficult if not impossible to negotiate.

[VeenenbergR]

Ok. If only 3 heavy shells did hit the (thinner upper?) armour belt and 2 managed to penetrate and 1 plunged between turrets A and B knocking them out, there are still 66 shells to be accounted for.

At least 12 more (barbette rings, decks, CT) can be located by studying the drawings of ballard and the table of hits presented by Garzke & Dullin. Then we have 16 hits in total, but still 54 not accounted hits.

Of coarse many (how many?) of them tore holes in the now lost superstructure and some (how many?) did hit the main turrets of which 1 lost its back armour plate and 1 gun barrel was also hit.
Some may have have plunged (like the projectile of the PoW) under the sea level and may have hit the bottom.

So at least 16+2 hits are known and clearly visible.

We also know that most of the superstructure was still standing and the admiral bridge was even almost unscatched!!!

There is however proof that many medium shells hit the sides, knocked out a lot of the AA and secondary armament and were also responsible for knocking out the 3 rangefinders.

I chalenge you to give me proof of more hits, otherwise I am inclined to say that probably ONLY 30 heavy shells out of 716 did find their target and 684 missed the Bismarck at medium and short range.

That is remarkable poor shooting for 85 minutes bombardment of which 40 minutes were against a defenceless opponent.

[Tiornu]

No one has attempted to account for each hit, or even each heavy hit, that Bismarck received. And for a good reason--it would be impossible. There was no one standing there during the battle to make a damage drawing while the shells landed around him The hits that have been documented are those the were notable for some reason. As is often said, most of the hits merely "rearranged the wreckage."

[VeenenbergR]

Ok, but then the 70 heavy shells which hit the Bismarck are just an estimation. It also could be half of this number or even less, some re-arranging the wreckage.

I have a notion that Bismarck was hit by relatively few heavies. Some hitting and penetrating the sides/ belt, some hitting the turrets, some plunging in the decks, some hit the (surrounding of the) CT and some the superstructure. Altogether it was enough to silence the tormented battleship.

Is there any new survey planned to the Bismarck? To search for the turrets?

[tommy303]

The turrets have all been found in the debris field, but there is little to see as the guns and most of the armoured portions of the gunhouses are buried in the mud.

[VeenenbergR]

To inspect the turrets (inside or outside) they have to be "uncovered". Can that technically be done?

[tommy303]

you might get a small ROV inside but it would be tricky as there is the working chamber below the turrets and sometimes other wreckage from the lower rotating structures in the way.

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/w ... eck_3.html

[Bgile]

I wonder whether the technology exists to vacuum the mud away from part of the turret. I know that is possible at shallower depths.

I'd like to see one or more of them recovered, but what are the odds of that happening? It would be very expensive because of the weight involved, and then we have the "grave" argument.