Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

[Dave Saxton]

As far as I know, evidence of a deck hit between the two forward turrets, or near the two forward turrets, has not been found on the wreck. The possible B-turret hit blowing off the back plate probably took place later in the battle, and is probably not the possible hit early. It's likely that some turrets got hit multiple times over the course of an hour and half. The barbets did.

[RF]

The description of the Rodney's first hit seems pretty clear - at the time. Evidence would need to be found on Bruno turret itself, has the underwater remains of this turret been examined?

[Farragut]

What would be considered a win?

If both ships are completely alone, and if the winner is determined by the sinking of the other ship, then wouldn't this fight end in a draw? Both ships badly battered but neither one able to sink the other?

Bismarck's armament probably can't overcome Rodney's armor but Rodney and KGV together weren't able to sink Bismarck.

[lwd]

A sinking is probably not all that likely but if one ship is a wreck and the other has sustained minimal damage that's a win. Rodney and KGV left Bismark in sinking condition. Even without the torpdos it's very unlikely Bismark would not have sunk withing a few hours or at most a day or two. Part may depend on the ranges the engagement is fought at. If it stays at longer ranges you don't have as much a case of "rearangeing the wreckage". Interestingly if Rodney wins then there is probably a better chace of Bismark sinking than vice versa. Especially if the engagment is at long range. Rodney can always close and try torpedos if Bismark is silenced.

[Bgile]

I can't help wondering how much damage would be done to Rodney by shells which hit her angled belt and are deflected downwards. Her belt is also very shallow, so there is a chance of diving shells or wave trough hits going under it.

[dunmunro]

Bismarck's limited supply of AP shells would have been a handicap.

[dahlhorse]

I do not understand how people seem to think the 16 inch guns of rodney are so powerful; The German 15 inch had more velocity and hitting power due to better gun powder and shell construction. rodney had the help of numerous other warships to essentially gang up on one wounded warship that was unable to steer making only about 2 to 7 knots in a headwind and was listing badly which hampered any accurate return fire; by the way Ceasar and Bruno Turrets fired until empty of all ammunition so this belief that somehow the rodny knocked out all of Bismarcks turrets is ridiculous!! Come on people; the Bismarck very nearly sank two british warships(hood sank and POW ran like a sissy) in one encounter; healthy and with steering ability and full turbine capacity the Bismarck would destroy any and all battleships period!!!

[Bgile]

When we make statements about pure physical properties like Geman powder composition and shell construction being better than that used by others, it doesn't usually impress people very much unless you can come up with valid reference material to demonstrate it.

Otherwise, it just seems outlandish.

[lwd]

Lets take a look at some of your statements:

I do not understand how people seem to think the 16 inch guns of rodney are so powerful; The German 15 inch had more velocity and hitting power due to better gun powder and shell construction.

Let's look at the data at:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm and http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_16-45_mk1.htm and compare:
First the British shell 929 kg, MV 797 m/s, burster 23.2 Kg
German shell 800kg, mv 820 m/s, burster 18.8 kg.
Burster the British shell is 23% greater
momentum British shell has ~13% superiority
KE British shel has ~10% superiority
As the German shell looses velocity quicker the latter two will show an increased superiority for the British gun as range increases.
Penetration does show an edge for the German gun especially at closer ranges and for verticle armor. Horizontal goes from almost a wash to a British advantage at longer ranges. A number of other areas would really nead to be considered as well if one wanted to do through comparison of the two gun systems. However the above is enough to show that the statement that the German shell had more hitting power is not universilly true.

rodney had the help of numerous other warships to essentially gang up on one wounded warship that was unable to steer making only about 2 to 7 knots in a headwind and was listing badly which hampered any accurate return fire;

And how is this relevant to the discussion at hand?

by the way Ceasar and Bruno Turrets fired until empty of all ammunition so this belief that somehow the rodny knocked out all of Bismarcks turrets is ridiculous!!

Really? From what I've read Bruno went out of action well before she was out of ammo and most probably due to a hit from Rodney. I dont' think anyone has claimed that Rodney knocked out all of Bismarks turrets so that's a strawman.

Come on people; the Bismarck very nearly sank two british warships(hood sank and POW ran like a sissy) in one encounter;

Sorry but that's BS. She came no where near sinking POW. By the way POW hardly "ran like a sissy" that's an uncalled for insult. POW retired until she got most of her main battery back on line then reengaged until ordered off by the admiralty.

healthy and with steering ability and full turbine capacity the Bismarck would destroy any and all battleships period!!!

Bismark would have had a hard time destroying any of the modern battleships that were here contemporaries and would be at a distinct disadvantage vs some of them. All you have to do is look at the numbers.

[dunmunro]

This is a set of penetration tables created using Nathan Okun's penetration formula's:

http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/BB_Gun_pen.html

[dahlhorse]

I cannot quote physical properties of the powder or shell construction but what I can quote is an excerpt from "battleship .org" an intensive study on naval firepower; also what what seems to be missing from people such as youself is the fact that the numbers game although scientific does not prove how crew training can enhance battle efficiency. :Firepower Table (Battleship.org)
Year Navy Ship PCT Total Gun Size Cal. Qty. Rate
1939 Germany Bismarck 118% 16,920 15 inch 47 8 3
1942 USA Iowa 100% 14,400 16 inch 50 9 2
1936 Germany Scharnhorst 95% 13,612 11 inch 55 9 2.5
1923 Britain Nelson 90% 12,960 16 inch 45 9 2
1941 USA South Dakota 90% 12,960 16 inch 45 9 2
1919 USA Tennessee 88% 12,600 14 inch 50 12 1.5
1939 Britain KGV 88% 12,600 14 inch 45 10 2
1940 Japan Yamato 86% 12,393 18 inch 45 9 1.75
1913 Japan Fuso 79% 11,340 14 inch 45 12 1.5
1913 Britain Queen Elizabeth 75% 10,080 15 inch 45 8 2
1915 Germany Bayern 75% 10,080 15 inch 45 8 2
1919 Britain Hood 75% 10,080 15 inch 45 8 2
1935 France Richelieu 75% 10,080 15 inch 45 8 2
1935 Italy Vittorio Veneto 61% 8,775 15 inch 50 9 1.3
1919 Japan Nagato 52% 7,488 16 inch 45 8 1.25

In the above table, total gun quality is derived by multiplying the gun size and caliber by the number of guns in the battery and the rate of fire. Note the great improvements in firepower of the "New Battleships." The PCT column indicates the firepower of each ship versus the Iowa class battleships as a standard of measure. Only the Bismarck with her superior rate of fire scores better than the Iowas. The Yamato, although armed with eighteen inch guns, had a relatively slow rate of fire, and in reality her 18"/45 guns were nearly identical in performance to the superb American 16"/50 gun.

When we make statements about pure physical properties like Geman powder composition and shell construction being better than that used by others, it doesn't usually impress people very much unless you can come up with valid reference material to demonstrate it.

Otherwise, it just seems outlandish.

[dahlhorse]

Shell bursters do not prove armour piercing ability; consider this information from "battleship.org" Firepower Table
Year Navy Ship PCT Total Gun Size Cal. Qty. Rate
1939 Germany Bismarck 118% 16,920 15 inch 47 8 3
1942 USA Iowa 100% 14,400 16 inch 50 9 2
1936 Germany Scharnhorst 95% 13,612 11 inch 55 9 2.5
1923 Britain Nelson 90% 12,960 16 inch 45 9 2
1941 USA South Dakota 90% 12,960 16 inch 45 9 2
1919 USA Tennessee 88% 12,600 14 inch 50 12 1.5
1939 Britain KGV 88% 12,600 14 inch 45 10 2
1940 Japan Yamato 86% 12,393 18 inch 45 9 1.75
1913 Japan Fuso 79% 11,340 14 inch 45 12 1.5
1913 Britain Queen Elizabeth 75% 10,080 15 inch 45 8 2
1915 Germany Bayern 75% 10,080 15 inch 45 8 2
1919 Britain Hood 75% 10,080 15 inch 45 8 2
1935 France Richelieu 75% 10,080 15 inch 45 8 2
1935 Italy Vittorio Veneto 61% 8,775 15 inch 50 9 1.3
1919 Japan Nagato 52% 7,488 16 inch 45 8 1.25

In the above table, total gun quality is derived by multiplying the gun size and caliber by the number of guns in the battery and the rate of fire. Note the great improvements in firepower of the "New Battleships." The PCT column indicates the firepower of each ship versus the Iowa class battleships as a standard of measure. Only the Bismarck with her superior rate of fire scores better than the Iowas. The Yamato, although armed with eighteen inch guns, had a relatively slow rate of fire, and in reality her 18"/45 guns were nearly identical in performance to the superb American 16"/50 gun.

Lets take a look at some of your statements:

I do not understand how people seem to think the 16 inch guns of rodney are so powerful; The German 15 inch had more velocity and hitting power due to better gun powder and shell construction.

Let's look at the data at:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm and http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_16-45_mk1.htm and compare:
First the British shell 929 kg, MV 797 m/s, burster 23.2 Kg
German shell 800kg, mv 820 m/s, burster 18.8 kg.
Burster the British shell is 23% greater
momentum British shell has ~13% superiority
KE British shel has ~10% superiority
As the German shell looses velocity quicker the latter two will show an increased superiority for the British gun as range increases.
Penetration does show an edge for the German gun especially at closer ranges and for verticle armor. Horizontal goes from almost a wash to a British advantage at longer ranges. A number of other areas would really nead to be considered as well if one wanted to do through comparison of the two gun systems. However the above is enough to show that the statement that the German shell had more hitting power is not universilly true.

rodney had the help of numerous other warships to essentially gang up on one wounded warship that was unable to steer making only about 2 to 7 knots in a headwind and was listing badly which hampered any accurate return fire;

And how is this relevant to the discussion at hand?

by the way Ceasar and Bruno Turrets fired until empty of all ammunition so this belief that somehow the rodny knocked out all of Bismarcks turrets is ridiculous!!

Really? From what I've read Bruno went out of action well before she was out of ammo and most probably due to a hit from Rodney. I dont' think anyone has claimed that Rodney knocked out all of Bismarks turrets so that's a strawman.

Come on people; the Bismarck very nearly sank two british warships(hood sank and POW ran like a sissy) in one encounter;

Sorry but that's BS. She came no where near sinking POW. By the way POW hardly "ran like a sissy" that's an uncalled for insult. POW retired until she got most of her main battery back on line then reengaged until ordered off by the admiralty.

healthy and with steering ability and full turbine capacity the Bismarck would destroy any and all battleships period!!!

Bismark would have had a hard time destroying any of the modern battleships that were here contemporaries and would be at a distinct disadvantage vs some of them. All you have to do is look at the numbers.

[Lutscha]

Well, this scoring system is funny, but no more. If BS could really achieve the 3,3 RPGPM, she would have to fight at a few kilometres, since her gun range at the loading angle is not very far. Besides, she never achieved this RoF in her engagements.

Scharnhorst et 3rd place is laughable as well. This system leaves out factors like shell weight, shell quality and penetration power.

A silly comparison at the very best.

You should better consult authorative sources and cross check them rather than to rely on such flawed excersises to support your view.

The peolpe here can provide them if you want.

Yamato`s RoF of 1,5 RPGPM is at her maximum range while the one of BS at her minimum, barrels need to be elevated and the German elevation rate compares rather poorly though it's somewhat compensated by her low trajectory guns.

Yamato had comparable RoF (both about 2 RPGPM) at common ranges and much more penetration power.

Consulting navweaps is a good start but then you should read anything: (from navweaps)

3) Many references claim that this was the fastest firing large caliber gun ever built. The ROF figures listed above represent generally published data that would support that claim. However, Krupp official documents cite the ROF as being 26 seconds at a four degree elevation, not notably faster than that of other nations' large-caliber weapons. Note that at this elevation the range would be considerably less than 10,000 meters. It is possible that well trained gun crews would reduce this time to the 20 seconds necessary to meet a ROF of 3 times per minute. A May 1941 report by the German Artillerieversuchskommando - AVSK (Artillery Testing Command for Ships) stated that the turret ammunition hoists on Bismarck were capable of delivering between 23 and 25 rounds per minute (for all four turrets), the equivalent of 3 rounds per minute per gun. However, this same report stated that design faults in the hoists led to two significant breakdowns during the evaluation, both of which caused long interruptions in the ammunition supply. Finally, it should be noted that Bismarck fired a total of 91 rounds during her thirteen minutes of firing at the Denmark Strait battle, which is actually less than one round per gun per minute.


The other tables are extremely flawed as well..

[Tiornu]

Yes, I've seen that web page, and it has no perceptible value for a realistic understanding of ship capabilities. The fact that Scharnhorst has a higher firepower rating than Yamato is the clearest indication of its lack of value. The weakest modern battleship ranked above the strongest--isn't that a sufficient clue?

[Karl Heidenreich]

lwd:

First of all I´m not backing dahlhorse´s position because it´s more animic than scientific. I had my quota of that. Having said that then:

Sorry but that's BS. She came no where near sinking POW. By the way POW hardly "ran like a sissy" that's an uncalled for insult. POW retired until she got most of her main battery back on line then reengaged until ordered off by the admiralty.

I´m not that sure about that. I believe Leach was a little bit battered when he ordered his withdraw. He was Royal Navy. And Royal Navy fights! Royal Navy never withdraws, only under very bad situations. Leach called the smoke screen and the run away because he was having big problems: Bismarck and PZ were hitting him bad and, moreover, since Bismarck sunk Hood and targeted him, PoW was unable to score on Bismarck again. His main batteries were failing, his bridge blown, he was the one LOSING the combat. So, he retires. Why else a commander retires? Because he was winning? Nope, sir, nope.
He reengaged, from a very, but very, comforting distance after he managed to solve his inboard problems. And did so time after the combat, no during the combat. Again, he turn away when Bismarck seemed to accept his challenge.

In this forum this issue has been discussed a lot and there seems to be some room for saying that a further continuation of the DS combat could have been the end of PoW. At least that ending is more likely than the end of Bismarck at DS.