Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

[RF]

The checking of fire presumably due to the guns being ''offsighted'' on one arm of the zigzag pattern. But that was dictated by the alleged torpedo attack, presumably in an action one on one against Rodney the maneouvering would be somewhat shallower.....

[IronDuke]

Paul, I'm sure lessons were learned at Jutland, but don't forget that the post war world of 1919 was very different from 1914 or 1939. War with Germany was not again envisaged until 1938, and at that time the German fleet was not seen as significant.

For the British don't forget that the biggest enemy faced by the Royal Navy in the inter war period were budget cuts - and Britain paid a huge price for that in the first three years of WW2.

For the Germans the main considerations for their fleet in the 1930's was political. Whilst the senior officers of the Reichsmarine/Kreigsmarine may have been aware of the lessons of Jutland, the principal director of their activities -Adolf Hitler - certainly was not.

Nelson and Rodney did incorperate many of the Lessons of Jutland and other WWI Naval actions. This was still more true of the KGV Class which were very well armoured, especially in terms of their decks. Above all, perhaps, the RN relearnt the lesson that it is as much about the men as the ships and by WWII the RN was much less subject to over centralisation and lack of initiative and even more agressive than in WWI.

Technology is very important, of course, as are numbers, but so is tactical skill, high morale and intelligent agression.
Ted

[Djoser]

It's not necessary to sink the rival to win the duel, either, in my mind. Not at all. As in boxing. You don't have to kill the guy, just knock his ass out.

With respect you cannot compare war to a competitive sport. Boxing, even before the Queensbury Rules, never had the specific intent on killing the opponent.

In war you sink the enemy ship, so it cannot fight another battle. The defeated boxer still had his life and remaining boxing career.

True enough, but it would seem pretty clear to me that in a duel between two ships, in which one ship was rendered incapable of doing even a destroyer any harm, possibly dead in the water, etc.--and the other ship remained capable of steaming away and fighting other opponents--there isn't much question of who 'won' the battle.

Of course it would be better to sink the Nelson, but as we have seen from the results of the final battle, even with two fully operational battleships steaming as close as they wanted firing away with all guns at the helpless opponent, it took more than that to sink the Bismarck. Scuttling and a few more torpedoes, to be exact. But the British battleships 'won' the fight, that is pretty clear. Even if it took more than they had to send the Bismarck to the bottom of the sea...

[Bgile]

I think Bismarck would have sunk without scuttling or torpedoes from Dorsetshire; it just would have taken several hours more. She was so badly wrecked internally above the MAD, damage control would have been impossible and she would have gradually settled lower and lower due to the many holes in her hull. There is no way to prove one way or the other what would have happened, though.

[Djoser]

Of course that is true. I didn't really mean to imply that the Bismarck wouldn't have sunk eventually without scuttling and Dorsetshire torpedoes, but rather that it was not so clearly the two battleships combined, sinking Bismarck.

But regardless, the victory is granted. Insisting on the clearcut sinking of one ship by another in order to declare victory might be a bit too stringent.

Bismarck hammering away for an hour or so at Nelson with main battery/gunnery problems, and quite possibly leaving Nelson in every bit as bad a condition as Bismarck was at the end, and steaming away in relatively good condition, wouldn't seem all that hard to view as 'winning'

But let's not fuss about it, lol.

This forum is so cool, I love reading the posts here! Especially seeing these guys who are publishing scientific literature on the subject right in here with us.

[Amiral Gueyprattes]

Don' t forget that during the final fight between Bismarck & Home Fleet, the mighty guns of Rodney obtains more results than King George V on barbettes and armour of Bismarck... !
We are now shure of this, observing the films of Bismarck's wreck !!!

[RF]

Not surprising given that Rodney had full armament deployed against Bismarck without the persistant gunnery breakdowns that KGV had......

[alecsandros]

Don' t forget that during the final fight between Bismarck & Home Fleet, the mighty guns of Rodney obtains more results than King George V on barbettes and armour of Bismarck... !
We are now shure of this, observing the films of Bismarck's wreck !!!

Indeed,
but with the Bismarck in good shape, Rodney would have been sunk in maximum 10 minutes...

[RF]

Not so sure about that.....

If Bismarck had been in good shape on the early morning of 27 May, would that mean an even bigger victory for the Germans - Rodney sunk in 10 minutes, KGV now only with Norfolk for company....

[alecsandros]

Not so sure about that.....

If Bismarck had been in good shape on the early morning of 27 May, would that mean an even bigger victory for the Germans - Rodney sunk in 10 minutes, KGV now only with Norfolk for company....

A, no,
I meant a "normal" engagement, not one like that on the 27th.

For instance, if Rheinubung went according to plan, and Rodney was escorting a convoy, Bismarck would sink her in 10 minutes and Prinz Eugen would destroy the convoy in a couple of hours :)

[Wordy]

Indeed,
but with the Bismarck in good shape, Rodney would have been sunk in maximum 10 minutes...

Really?

I thought battelships were difficult to sink with gunfire alone, how is it that Bismarck would've made such easy work of HMS Rodney and HMS Prince of Wales?

[alecsandros]

Indeed,
but with the Bismarck in good shape, Rodney would have been sunk in maximum 10 minutes...

Really?

I thought battelships were difficult to sink with gunfire alone, how is it that Bismarck would've made such easy work of HMS Rodney and HMS Prince of Wales?

No no,
Not on the 27th of May :)

The topic and my answer concerns Bismarck and Rodney ALONE, in a normal battle.

[Wordy]

No no,
Not on the 27th of May :)

The topic and my answer concerns Bismarck and Rodney ALONE, in a normal battle.

Yeah got that, but still Battleships are still difficult to sink by gunfire alone, thats why I'm asking why Rodney would be sunk in such a short space of time.

The POW is mentioned as there a few on here who think that sinking a modern, well armoured battleship (POW) was a forgone conclusion if only the Bismarck had pressed the action.

[alecsandros]

No no,
Not on the 27th of May :)

The topic and my answer concerns Bismarck and Rodney ALONE, in a normal battle.

Yeah got that, but still Battleships are still difficult to sink by gunfire alone, thats why I'm asking why Rodney would be sunk in such a short space of time.

Well, the protection of the Rodney was not sufficient to protect her against Bismarck's guns.
Every part of the ship was vulnerable to 38cm gunfire inside 22km (except the horizontal protection above machinery and magazines, which was very good)...
Bismarck was much faster, and more agile, she was much more heavily protected, and offered significantly better stability as a gun platform.

The POW is mentioned as there a few on here who think that sinking a modern, well armoured battleship (POW) was a forgone conclusion if only the Bismarck had pressed the action.

I don't think PoW would have been easy to sink. She did have some luck, though, as the torpedo alarm was sounded on board Prinz Eugen exactly when the Bismarck was about to open fire at maximum rate. As it was, the 2 German ships started evasive manouvres (to escape the imaginary torpedoes) and they lost their occasion of inflicting superior damage on PoW, which had the time to develop the smoke screen and retreat up to 18km before the Germans resumed their previous course.

To sum up: my impression is that post-1930 battleships were indeed very hard to sink by gunfire alone, but the ones built before that, well, they had many shortcomings that could easily put them under water (look at the loss of the Hood, Kirishima and Bretagne... )

[RF]

For instance, if Rheinubung went according to plan, and Rodney was escorting a convoy, Bismarck would sink her in 10 minutes and Prinz Eugen would destroy the convoy in a couple of hours :)

Well, if the experience of Scheer attacking a convoy with just one AMC escorting it is anything to go by this looks unlikely..... even if Rodney is quickly destroyed the convoy could scatter in all directions and would be difficult for even two ships to run them all to ground. Consider also the presemce of other escort ships, including torpedo carrying destroyers which would have to be dealt with, giving the merchant ships more time to scatter. And torpedo carrying escorts pose a much bigger threat if the Prinz Eugen is involved given its much greater vulneribility to that form of attack.