Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

[paul.mercer]

If, as Dave Sexton suggests, Rodneys protection was 20-27000yards then she would be within her protection zone and would be very capable of hitting Bismarck at that range also.

... The protective scheme built in the 20s couldn't anticipate the advances in artillery a decade later.
Bismarck's artillery had more penetrating power than Rodney's at ranges up to 18km, allthough it had a smaller caliber. Performance of 38cm shells at various obliquities was also substantialy better than that of the 16" MK1B.

Also, when designing the Rodney's , there was little to no evidence of underwater hits, so the belt was very shallow.

So what is being said is that British ship designers and armament manufactures between the wars not only did not anticipate fighing ships with comparable armour and armoury but they also did nothing to improve their own 15" and 16" shells also they were so complacent that they did not think that other countries would do so and left all their ships vunerable to fire from the Germans, Americans, Italians, French, Japanese and anyone else who could build a battleship with modern guns! As for the argument that the British 16" was not as good as the German 15", this seems to have been disproved by others on this forum. Really gentlemen, this running down of British ships is getting ridiculous, on other threads we have the suggestion that Scharnhorst might have shot DoY full of holes due to her wonderful 11" guns, British battleships had woeful guns and armour, useless rangefinders, slow rates of fire - this list is almost endless, they were not bad ships at all and could hold their own with most comparable enemies except perhaps the super battleships like Yamato. Bismarck was a very powerful ship, quite possibly one of the best of her time, but she had her weaknesses, if the hit on Hood could be considered 'lucky' then so should the torpedo hit on her rudder be judged in the same light, in the end she was reduced to a smoking wreck by the 14" and 16" guns of the very ships that appear to be so despised on this forum.

[northcape]

Really gentlemen, this running down of British ships is getting ridiculous, on other threads we have the suggestion that Scharnhorst might have shot DoY full of holes due to her wonderful 11" guns,

Could not agree more, in particular to the comparison of Scharnhorst and DoY. After all, the proof of the pudding is in its eating - and there was a reason why Scharnhorst was running away, and why Scharnhorst scored only one hit vs. the 10+ hits of DoY which reduced the german battlecruiser to a defenceless and wrecked state. And the reason can't be reduced to the fact that Scharnhorst's radar was knocked out before, nor to the numerical superiority of the british fleet. 10 times 14" plus are just more than 9 times 11", in particular given the armour of both opponents.

[RNfanDan]

Really gentlemen, this running down of British ships is getting ridiculous, on other threads we have the suggestion that Scharnhorst might have shot DoY full of holes due to her wonderful 11" guns,

Not so fast, fellows. It is widely known that the British never could build decent ships. After all, the fact that they RULED THE WAVES for the better part of THREE CENTURIES was nothing but the most fortunate stroke of luck. The KGV class 14" shells were so light that they were used as kite stabilisers by UK children, and the Nelson class couldn't even float on a level, due to their tendency to ride bows-up because of all the machinery squeezed into the after part of their hulls.

I must further point out that I have seen documented proof that Scharnhorst was deliberately scuttled, and that every claimed British 14" hit was merely simulated by her own on-board scuttling charges. Oh, the documents? They were shredded into insulation materials for later use when Hell freezes over....

[alecsandros]

So what is being said is that British ship designers and armament manufactures between the wars not only did not anticipate fighing ships with comparable armour and armoury

If you would take the time and compare the 2 ships, you would observe that they very different. THe Nelsons were built withint the rules of the Washington Treaty, while other battleships, Bismarck included, were not. The Nelson class did not have adequate protection, as has been noted several times on the forum, but for whatever reason, analysis and facts do not appear to make any kind of impression on various forumers.

As for the argument that the British 16" was not as good as the German 15", this seems to have been disproved by others on this forum.

Again , if you would take the time and re-read the comparisons made betwen the 2 guns and mounts, you woudl observe significant differences, which favor the German artillery.

[dunmunro]

So what is being said is that British ship designers and armament manufactures between the wars not only did not anticipate fighing ships with comparable armour and armoury

If you would take the time and compare the 2 ships, you would observe that they very different. THe Nelsons were built withint the rules of the Washington Treaty, while other battleships, Bismarck included, were not. The Nelson class did not have adequate protection, as has been noted several times on the forum, but for whatever reason, analysis and facts do not appear to make any kind of impression on various forumers.

As for the argument that the British 16" was not as good as the German 15", this seems to have been disproved by others on this forum.

Again , if you would take the time and re-read the comparisons made betwen the 2 guns and mounts, you woudl observe significant differences, which favor the German artillery.

The only area where Nelson could be faulted was that her main belt was probably too shallow, but it really wasn't much different from Bismarck (main belt height was 14ft versus 16ft, IIRC, with little difference at the depth below water). KGV was designed within WT limitations but as these expired upon the outbreak of war, more weight was added during final construction.

[alecsandros]

The only area where Nelson could be faulted was that her main belt was probably too shallow,


but it really wasn't much different from Bismarck (main belt height was 14ft versus 16ft,

I have 12ft for Rodeny covering 56% of waterline and 16ft on Bismarck covering 72% of waterline.

Bismarck had armored slopes 100-110mm thick and a longitudinal TDS 30-45mm thick behind the main armor belt, thus perforation of 16" shell through the main armor system was practically impossible.

KGV was designed within WT limitations but as these expired upon the outbreak of war, more weight was added during final construction.

The discussion did not concern KGV...

[dunmunro]

The only area where Nelson could be faulted was that her main belt was probably too shallow,


but it really wasn't much different from Bismarck (main belt height was 14ft versus 16ft,

I have 12ft for Rodeny covering 56% of waterline and 16ft on Bismarck covering 72% of waterline.

Bismarck had armored slopes 100-110mm thick and a longitudinal TDS 30-45mm thick behind the main armor belt, thus perforation of 16" shell through the main armor system was practically impossible.

KGV was designed within WT limitations but as these expired upon the outbreak of war, more weight was added during final construction.

The discussion did not concern KGV...

After some checking, I discovered that (according to R&R) Nelson had a 13ft belt height versus 15.75ft for Bismarck. At fighting displacement, with water protection compartments full, Nelson's belt would have been submerged to 6-7 ft versus 7.2ft for Bismarck. Nelson's belt was inclined at 18 degrees making penetration unlikely at typical fighting ranges and inclinations while her turret faces (16in), barbettes (15in) and deck armour (6.25in on .5in)over the magazines were thicker than Bismarck's and she had a 1.5in TDS bulkhead behind the main belt. Nelson also had an armoured deck forward of the main armoured bulkhead and an armoured turtle deck aft of the main armoured bulkhead, so she had additional protection forward and aft of the main belt.

[alecsandros]

After some checking, I discovered that (according to R&R) Nelson had a 13ft belt height versus 15.75ft for Bismarck. At fighting displacement, with water protection compartments full, Nelson's belt would have been submerged to 6-7 ft versus 7.2ft for Bismarck. Nelson's belt was inclined at 18 degrees making penetration unlikely at typical fighting ranges and inclinations while her turret faces (16in), barbettes (15in) and deck armour (6.25in on .5in)over the magazines were thicker than Bismarck's and she had a 1.5in TDS bulkhead behind the main belt. Nelson also had an armoured deck forward of the main armoured bulkhead and an armoured turtle deck aft of the main armoured bulkhead, so she had additional protection forward and aft of the main belt.

...

The discussion is more complex:

according to G&D , Bismarck's underwater portion of the belt was 2.6 meters, or 8.6 ft. This corresponds to about 48000 tons load.

Contrary to popular belief, Bismarck's main belt was also inclined, at an angle of 7* - 17*, thus making penetration less likely.

German KC n/A armor was significantly more resistant to perforation then British 1920s vintage CA armor. The coefficient was probably 0.9 - 0.92.

The equivalent thicknesses of ROdney would probably be:

Belt = 356 x 0.9 = 320mm
Barbette = 380 x 0.9 = 342mm
Turret face = 400 x 0.9 = 360 mm

====

Bismarck had 2-3 layers of armor deck, with thickensses of 50-80mm (weather deck), 20mm (centerline battery deck), and 80-100-110mm (main armor deck with slopes), separated by specific distances.

According to Rheinmetal Borsig and Krupp research, this system was equivalent to at least 140mm of single-sheet armor at it's thinest portion, and over 200mm at the thickest portion.

=======

The % protected volume was far larger in Bismarck than in Rodney.

=======

But the most important aspect is that: Rodney had no protection against Bismarck's artillery inside 20km, while Bismarck's vitals were secured against 16"/L45 gunfire inside this range.

[Byron Angel]

..... These sorts of questions are impossible to answer with any certainty. IMO, the odds would generally be in Bismarck's favor: much larger ship, much faster ship, generally better protected ship overall, with greater useful main battery arcs of fire. We can joust over mm's of armor thickness, factors of armor merit and inclination, pumping capacity, scarps, muzzle velocities and the like. But, in the real world, the fight would probably be won by the first ship to score an important hit. At ranges inside 20,000 yards, that would pretty much be a toss up.

Strictly my opinion of course.

B

[alecsandros]

.. At ranges inside 20,000 yards, that would pretty much be a toss up.

Strictly my opinion of course.

B

... I don't think so at all: Bismarck straddled rapidly, consistently and scored hits very fast inside 20km. ROdney needed 18 salvos to score a straddle.
Even with better crew, Rodney's dispersion problems were still severe, thus making actual hits quite difficult.

In May 1941, Bismarck already had radar integrated into her main fire control system. The results speak for themselvs: Norfolk straddled repeatedly, Sheffield, straddled repeatedly; 3 destroyers straddled at 10km or more; Hood straddled at 3rd salvo; Prince of Wales straddled repeatedly; Rodney, KGV straddled fast during the last battle.

[Francis Marliere]

I agree with Byron. I am a bit sceptical with armor and shell penetration calculations, and anyway, even non penetrating hits can be decisive by knocking out directors or conning station. I quote here a message from Bill Jurens (http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... cGl5qz-UjE) :

"So far as the solution to armor penetration problems is concerned -- and I have expressed this before -- it is my strong opinion that the problem of attempting to predict penetration phenomena via closed form solution sets is essentially and inherently intractable, i.e. that these sorts of problems -- except in fairly general cases where only moderate accuracy and reliability are concerned -- must be tackled via numerical integration. This is true of most dynamic phenomena where one is confronted with a wide range of often highly non-linear variables interacting in curious and often unpredictable ways. This is, in fact, how most or all armor penetration research is being done today, fairly accurately solving problems that we, dealing with simple homogeneous plates, etc., would find hopelessly complex.

One must -- or at least should -- keep in mind that although armor penetration in and of itself can be of critical importance in naval combat, it does represent in most cases a secondary or perhaps even tertiary role. Rates of fire of guns, accuracy of the main battery, tactical competence on the part of those in command, and training of damage-control crews, to name just a few additional items, can easily be of much more importance in determining final outcomes. While it is true that the penetration of armor may, at least in some cases, represent a critical link in the chain of destruction, one must also remember that it represents only one link in what might be a very long chain indeed. I alluded to this sort of problem a number of posts ago when I said that "When one's only tool is a hammer, everything soon starts to look like a nail." Similarly, if all one thinks about is armor and armor penetration, one tends to give this particular facet of the entire picture entirely too much emphasis."

Hence with respect with Alecansdros and Dunmunroe, I am not persuaded that discussing of the virtues of Bismarck and Rodney's guns and armor scheme tells the whole story. IMHO even if the odds are in Bismarck's favor (he's bigger and newer), both ships can make a lot of damage to the other. Luck and skill would play a big role.

Best,

Francis

[alecsandros]

Rates of fire of guns, accuracy of the main battery, tactical competence on the part of those in command, and training of damage-control crews, to name just a few additional items, can easily be of much more importance in determining final outcomes.

Francis

Hi Francis,
The underlined factors that you named above drastically favored the Bismarck...

In the vast majority of heavyweight capital ships battles, the first ship to land crippling hits won, and Bismarck proved several times that she was a much competent artillery platform and had the capability of obtaining superb firing solutions.

[dunmunro]

...

The discussion is more complex:

according to G&D , Bismarck's underwater portion of the belt was 2.6 meters, or 8.6 ft. This corresponds to about 48000 tons load.

Contrary to popular belief, Bismarck's main belt was also inclined, at an angle of 7* - 17*, thus making penetration less likely.

German KC n/A armor was significantly more resistant to perforation then British 1920s vintage CA armor. The coefficient was probably 0.9 - 0.92.

The equivalent thicknesses of ROdney would probably be:

Belt = 356 x 0.9 = 320mm
Barbette = 380 x 0.9 = 342mm
Turret face = 400 x 0.9 = 360 mm

====

Bismarck had 2-3 layers of armor deck, with thickensses of 50-80mm (weather deck), 20mm (centerline battery deck), and 80-100-110mm (main armor deck with slopes), separated by specific distances.

According to Rheinmetal Borsig and Krupp research, this system was equivalent to at least 140mm of single-sheet armor at it's thinest portion, and over 200mm at the thickest portion.

=======

The % protected volume was far larger in Bismarck than in Rodney.

=======

But the most important aspect is that: Rodney had no protection against Bismarck's artillery inside 20km, while Bismarck's vitals were secured against 16"/L45 gunfire inside this range.

According to NaAb and thus Okun, there is very little difference between Rodney's armour and Bismarck's in terms of resistance (~2%). The depth of Bismarck's belt was taken from this website. Rodney is also a smaller target than Bismarck, and thus harder to hit. Rodney has a much heavier broadside and each 16in shell has a lot more destructive potential than Bismarck's 38cm shells. Rodney also has a 30mm weather deck and hull plating which has to be accounted for as well. At typical combat ranges and inclinations both ships are immune through their belts and decks. Rodney had an excellent FC system and was slated to received type 284 and type 281 radar during her planned May 1941 refit while Nelson already had Type 284 in May 1941.

I'm not making a case for Rodney being superior to Bismarck, but I think's it's important to use factual information.

[alecsandros]

According to NaAb and thus Okun, there is very little difference between Rodney's armour and Bismarck's in terms of resistance (~2%).

...

Here, http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/me ... pt2009.htm,
Nathan makes a case that British WW1 and 1920s era CA armor was substantialy less resistant than British and German post 1930 CA armor. [pre 1930 armors have Q=0.828 - 0.9, while post 1930, Q = 0.96]

At typical combat ranges and inclinations both ships are immune through their belts and decks.

German 38cm shells would perforate about 335mm of KC n/A armor at 30* total obliquity, range 20km...

The deck protection of both battleships was substantial, and I don't see how either could land a crippling hit through the decks at ranges below 20km.

[paul.mercer]

Rates of fire of guns, accuracy of the main battery, tactical competence on the part of those in command, and training of damage-control crews, to name just a few additional items, can easily be of much more importance in determining final outcomes.

Francis

Hi Francis,
The underlined factors that you named above drastically favored the Bismarck...

In the vast majority of heavyweight capital ships battles, the first ship to land crippling hits won, and Bismarck proved several times that she was a much competent artillery platform and had the capability of obtaining superb firing solutions.

How come? She only fought once with full capability against an aged battlecruiser and a new, ill prepared ship with only part of her guns working, Bismarck was able to range on PoW quickly because the two British ships were so close to each other. PoW on the other hand was still able to get a couple of critical hits on Bismarck despite her problems and with an inexperienced crew. Yes, she ranged on Rodney quickly but did'nt hit her and then her shooting went to pieces, especially after being hit by one of Rodneys 16" shells that some appear to seem so feeble.