Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by Tiornu »

All right, I will explain. Historically, Bismarck was already crippled when Rodney showed up. That's not the case here. Historically, Rodney was in company with other British heavy units. That's not the case here. Historically, Rodney's crew was a thoroughly scavenged band that had great difficulty getting on target. If that's the case here, then she's at a big disadvantage. But I think most of this was self-evident in the posted scenario.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

What is the evidence that Rodney had difficulty targetting a crippled Bismarck?
Most of the literature I have seen records that Rodney hit Bismarck almost immediately after being straddled by Bismarck's third salvo. These sources describe later in the action of Rodney's shells bursting on Bismarck's decks in clusters of three or four per salvo.
I am aware that KGV had gunnery problems but not Rodney.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Post by lwd »

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-016.htm
states the following:
According to the action logs, optical rangefinding conditions were extremely difficult due to long range and funnel haze. KGV got an echo with her Type 284, setting the initial range at 25,100 yards and relayed this range to Rodney. Rodney used this range to good effect. ...
In any case if you look at it in a strategic sense if Rodney is sunk but Bismark takes serious damage it's probably still a win for the British. A more likely result is both ships taking serious damage. Even if Bismark makes it home the Germans can't afford that type of battle.
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu »

A Warship article a couple years ago covered this in detail. The report of an early straddle was apparently a mistaken observation from one of the British cruisers. In fact, Rodney did not even straddle until salvo 17 or so.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

Various sources from Grenfell onwards have made observation of a direct hit on Bismarck - some describe it as on B Turret, referring to the back of the turret being blown off, others as a sheet of flame shooting up the control tower, as being the first observable hit seen by British observers on Bismarck, almost immediately after Rodney opened its A arcs to allow all three turrets to bear. I had presumed Rodney caused this hit.

The sources imply that this hit knocked out the central fire control and the forward turrets, accounting for the sudden deterioration in 15 inch return fire.

If it were the case that both British ships were off target that long then one wonders what would have happened if Bismarck's crew and gunnery had been as good as three days earlier.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Post by tommy303 »

Muellenhiem-Rechberg also commented that it seemed the British were taking a very long time to find the range.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Post by Tiornu »

Here, I found the article in Warship 2002-2003. Rodney opened fire at 0847 and did not observe a straddle until 0859, on her eighteenth salvo. According to G&D, the initial dramatic hit came at 0859.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Post by dunmunro »

We must remember that fire was opened at about 25000 yds, in a Force 8 Gale, so the lack of early hits is not too surprising. The first hits would have occurred at a range of 15 to 18k yds, which is not bad considering the weather. KGV is reported to have mistaken Rodney's shell splashes for her own, which highlights the problems of two ships firing independently on one target. Also, IIRC, the wind was blowing the funnel smoke directly towards Bismarck, which would have complicated optical rangefinding.

This article:

http://bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/histo ... attle.html

puts the range of the initial hits at 18000meters, or about 20k yds.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

tommy303 wrote:Muellenhiem-Rechberg also commented that it seemed the British were taking a very long time to find the range.
One aspect here is that the hits seemed to be concentrated on the forward sections of Bismarck. As the Baron was in the aft fire control position this situation may not have been immediately apparent - apart from the loss of communication with Schneider and the main gunnery control early in the action, which he confirms.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
paul mercer
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Tavistock, West Devon

Post by paul mercer »

Ok chaps, have studied all your arguments and it would seem that they would have been fairly evenly matched and this is where luck comes in.
Remember both ships are trying to hit each other, not in a specific place but actually just trying to hit the opposing ship. A 'lucky' (or 'unlucky' if you are on the receiving end) hit in a vital spot can turn the battle (as with the Hood or the torpedo on Bismarck) The first one to obtain such a hit is probably going to win.
However, everyone is comparing Bismarck to a rather worn out Rodney with a tired crew and I would say it is advantage Bismarck. Put a newly refurbished Rodney with a fully worked up crew and, despite all her failings, I would probably back Rodney, although I don't think the winner in either case would be in a very good shape.
Of course, has Bismarck met Rodney on her way back to France her commander would almost certainly have shown good sense and used her very superior speed to avoid battle
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

paul mercer wrote:
However, everyone is comparing Bismarck to a rather worn out Rodney with a tired crew and I would say it is advantage Bismarck.
Except that Bismarck's crew were even more knackered from being constantly at action stations for three days.

But overall I think that your verdict about who hits first is likely to be the winner is the right one.
I wonder what would have happened if instead of Hood/POW intercepting Bismarck on the 24th May it had been Rodney in the intercept position, with Lutjens in a mad moment of misidentification assuming her to be a cruiser and attacks....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Nellie
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:18 am
Location: Stockholm Sweden

Post by Nellie »

RF wrote:

I wonder what would have happened if instead of Hood/POW intercepting Bismarck on the 24th May it had been Rodney in the intercept position, with Lutjens in a mad moment of misidentification assuming her to be a cruiser and attacks....
Well, affected by a lot of vodka he maybe could have done it!
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

And I wonder what Karl would say, given his rather low opinion of Admiral Lutjens leadership.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
paul mercer
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Tavistock, West Devon

Post by paul mercer »

RF wrote:
paul mercer wrote:
However, everyone is comparing Bismarck to a rather worn out Rodney with a tired crew and I would say it is advantage Bismarck.
Except that Bismarck's crew were even more knackered from being constantly at action stations for three days.
I was thinking more of both ships and crews being fully operational, however, this brings me to another point which I touched on in my earlier question of the KG v class being underestimated.
Surely, after Jutland both sides learned some valuable lessons, the British from the accuracy of German gunnery and the Germans from the power of the 15" gunned QE class. Now, when the British designed the Nelsons and the KGv's they must have known that they might be faced with a similarily armed opponent, so presumably would have allowed for them taking a large number of hits from 15" or 16" shells, likewise the Germans would have done so when Bismarck & Tirpitz were on the drawing board and so of course would those of the US, France, Italy and Japan. I realise that there was a number of years between the Nelson, KGv and Bismarck class being built but I cannot think that there would have been a radical change in thinking as to the placing of armour on capital ships.
So, ignoring what I call the super battleships like the Iowas and Yamato's, would there have really been as much difference when it came to a ship to ship fight between a Nelson or KGv or any other battleship designed betweeen the wars against Bismarck or Tirpitz? I recognise that Bismarck was probably one the best of all those designs, but having read the correspondance in this forum over the last few years it gives one the impression that she and her sister were invincible!
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Post by lwd »

IMO all the between war BBs with the possible exception of the small ones (twins and Dunkerque class) would have been serious threats to each other. I don't see the Bismark and Tripitz as being the best in this group either.
Post Reply