Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by dunmunro »

alecsandros wrote:
dunmunro wrote:
It has already been pointed out that PoW did score hits while under fire.
Last hit by Prince of Wales came at 5:59.

Bismarck shifted fire to her at 6:01.

PoW was under fire from PE from 0558. Hood exploded at 0600, forcing PoW to radically change course around Hood and PoW's decrease in accuracy seems much more probable from her having to manoeuvre radically than any other cause, except maybe that Bismarck also turned away at the same time.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by alecsandros »

dunmunro wrote:
alecsandros wrote:
dunmunro wrote:
It has already been pointed out that PoW did score hits while under fire.
Last hit by Prince of Wales came at 5:59.

Bismarck shifted fire to her at 6:01.

PoW was under fire from PE from 0558. Hood exploded at 0600, forcing PoW to radically change course around Hood and PoW's decrease in accuracy seems much more probable from her having to manoeuvre radically than any other cause, except maybe that Bismarck also turned away at the same time.
Prinz Eugen was a heavy cruiser and PRince of Wales was a battleship. Even so, the first salvo from Prinz Eugen probably landed at 5:59 (the cruiser was ordered to shift fire at 5:58)

Prince of Wales did not obtain any more straddles or hits starting with 5:59 (the same minute it was taken under fire)

From Antonio's reconstruction of the battle:

"At 05:59 the Prinz Eugen fired on the Prince of Wales, which was now her target at only 16,000 meters: 4 series of shells in rapid sequence, her eighth salvo (turrets A+B and C+D) and her ninth salvo (turrets A+B and C+D ) which fired on the British battleships but did not hit the target. "
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by paul.mercer »

alecsandros wrote:Paul,
In theory, a 50.000 ton battlecruiser with 12" belt, 2+3+2" of armored decks and 8x15" guns should have put a good fight against a 50.000 tons battleship, with 12.6" belt, 2+4" of armored decks and 8x15" guns.

but in practice, it didn't...
I don't think Hood weighed 50,000 tons, it was closer to 43-45,000, even though the weight is not that tremendously different to Bismarck, Hood was around 45 feet longer which would account for Hood being that close. It still boils down to the indisputable fact that Hood was designed and built as a battlecruiser, Bismarck was designed as a battleship, had Hood got the modifications she was due to have she may have lasted longer, had she made her turn earlier - who knows? Rodney on the other hand was a battleship intended to fight against her own kind and at full load was also about 42000 tons. My earlier post in which I stated that British designers would not have sat on their hands between the wars and in the light of Jutland not only would have upgraded their shell design but would be aware that they might have to fight enemy ships with similar arms and armour still stands. I do concede that Rodney would have been hard pressed against a fully operational Bismarck, but I still think that the suggestion that she would have lasted only a few minutes before being blown out of the water without scoring a single hit in return is not only ridiculous, but in a way an insult to a fine ship.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by dunmunro »

alecsandros wrote:
dunmunro wrote:
alecsandros wrote:

Bismarck shifted fire to her at 6:01.

PoW was under fire from PE from 0558. Hood exploded at 0600, forcing PoW to radically change course around Hood and PoW's decrease in accuracy seems much more probable from her having to manoeuvre radically than any other cause, except maybe that Bismarck also turned away at the same time.
Prinz Eugen was a heavy cruiser and PRince of Wales was a battleship. Even so, the first salvo from Prinz Eugen probably landed at 5:59 (the cruiser was ordered to shift fire at 5:58)

Prince of Wales did not obtain any more straddles or hits starting with 5:59 (the same minute it was taken under fire)

From Antonio's reconstruction of the battle:

"At 05:59 the Prinz Eugen fired on the Prince of Wales, which was now her target at only 16,000 meters: 4 series of shells in rapid sequence, her eighth salvo (turrets A+B and C+D) and her ninth salvo (turrets A+B and C+D ) which fired on the British battleships but did not hit the target. "

Antonio states that PE began firing on PoW at 0558:30, therefore the first salvos would have landed around 0559:00. PoW's salvo 13 was fired at 0559:50 so PoW was definitely under fire at the time of firing salvo 13. Hood blew up at almost precisely at 0600:00 and this is when PoW had to begin her radical course changes to avoid Hood, and from Salvo 14 onward her accuracy declined.

I really don't understand what you're trying to get at here as it is pretty obvious from the timing and sequence of events that PoW's gunnery declined because of the loss of Hood.
User avatar
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by RNfanDan »

dunmunro wrote:I really don't understand what you're trying to get at here as it is pretty obvious from the timing and sequence of events that PoW's gunnery declined because of the loss of Hood.
Perhaps more accurately, not so much from Hood's loss, as the fact she was "hitched" to the flagship's movements. Had PoW enjoyed the independence of maneuver, disallowed by Holland, it is at least conceivable that she would have continued to obtain hits after Hood was stricken, having no need to suddenly avert wreckage.

The ship was essentially placed in the predicament of having to begin obtaining a firing solution all over again. Alec may benefit from reading and absorbing naval gunnery procedures as they existed in 1941, to gain an appreciation of how difficult it was for officers and technicians to maintain accurate gunnery when their own vessel was subject to major disruptions in course and speed.
Image
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by alecsandros »

dunmunro wrote:

Antonio states that PE began firing on PoW at 0558:30, therefore the first salvos would have landed around 0559:00. PoW's salvo 13 was fired at 0559:50 so PoW was definitely under fire at the time of firing salvo 13.
Source for either of these ?

From ANtonio's reconstruction, it's clear Bimsarck was hit at 5:59, so the salvo was in the air earlier than you would think.

I really don't understand what you're trying to get at here as it is pretty obvious from the timing and sequence of events that PoW's gunnery declined because of the loss of Hood.
It's obvious: Prinz Eugen was a cruiser, Prince of Wales a battleshp. I don't think it's that important or dangerous to be under fire from a cruiser.

However, PoW stoped scoring any straddles or hits immediately after Bismarck focused her attention on her.

It's ridicolous to say that the avoidance of Hood's wreckage made Prince of Wales stop obtaining hits: at 6:01 the wreckage was fully cleared, and the PoW had at least 10 minutes to try to score new hits. But... she didn't, of course, but that's just history, and who cares about it ?
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by alecsandros »

RNfanDan wrote:
The ship was essentially placed in the predicament of having to begin obtaining a firing solution all over again. Alec may benefit from reading and absorbing naval gunnery procedures as they existed in 1941, to gain an appreciation of how difficult it was for officers and technicians to maintain accurate gunnery when their own vessel was subject to major disruptions in course and speed.
What "major" disruptions ? Prince of Wales made a course alteration of 20* to avoid the Hood. Speed remained pretty much constant troughout the engagement.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by alecsandros »

paul.mercer wrote:
alecsandros wrote:Paul,
In theory, a 50.000 ton battlecruiser with 12" belt, 2+3+2" of armored decks and 8x15" guns should have put a good fight against a 50.000 tons battleship, with 12.6" belt, 2+4" of armored decks and 8x15" guns.

but in practice, it didn't...
I don't think Hood weighed 50,000 tons, it was closer to 43-45,000,
According to HMS Hood organization, the ship was 48360 tons at full load.
Rodney on the other hand was a battleship intended to fight against her own kind...
Rodney was designed to fight Nagato and COlorado classes.

She had 300mm of belt armor in contemporary qualities over the machinery, and 320mm contemporary over the magazines, extending 1.8 meters above and below the waterline, 1 rudder, and 45000 shp. PEriod.

The machinery was vulnerable to 38cm gunfire out to 20km, at 35* total obliquity. And that assuming "grenz" condition, so the shell fully funcitonal and in good state to burst.
that she would have lasted only a few minutes before being blown out of the water without scoring a single hit in return is not only ridiculous, but in a way an insult to a fine ship.
If you would take the time and study the arillery capabilities of the 2 ships, you would come to a similar conclusion.
User avatar
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by RNfanDan »

alecsandros wrote: ...but that's just history, and who cares about it ?
Good point! END OF DISCUSSION :dance:
Image
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by alecsandros »

RNfanDan wrote:
alecsandros wrote: ...but that's just history, and who cares about it ?
Good point! END OF DISCUSSION :dance:
Exactly!
Every time historical facts contradict your perception, the facts must be wrong.
Such as is the case of Prince of Wales avoiding the Hood in 1 minute, and then failing to score any straddles or hits whatsoever.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by dunmunro »

alecsandros wrote:
dunmunro wrote:

Antonio states that PE began firing on PoW at 0558:30, therefore the first salvos would have landed around 0559:00. PoW's salvo 13 was fired at 0559:50 so PoW was definitely under fire at the time of firing salvo 13.
Source for either of these ?

From ANtonio's reconstruction, it's clear Bimsarck was hit at 5:59, so the salvo was in the air earlier than you would think.

I really don't understand what you're trying to get at here as it is pretty obvious from the timing and sequence of events that PoW's gunnery declined because of the loss of Hood.
It's obvious: Prinz Eugen was a cruiser, Prince of Wales a battleshp. I don't think it's that important or dangerous to be under fire from a cruiser.

However, PoW stoped scoring any straddles or hits immediately after Bismarck focused her attention on her.

It's ridicolous to say that the avoidance of Hood's wreckage made Prince of Wales stop obtaining hits: at 6:01 the wreckage was fully cleared, and the PoW had at least 10 minutes to try to score new hits. But... she didn't, of course, but that's just history, and who cares about it ?
Evidence:
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... encIVa.gif
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... encIVb.gif

Salvo 14 was still reasonably accurate but after that PoW is constantly turning.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by alecsandros »

dunmunro wrote:


Salvo 14 was still reasonably accurate but after that PoW is constantly turning.
Why was she turning so constantly ?

Actualy, Prince of Wales fired 3 more salvos, on local control, from turret Y before stopping fire alltogether.

In total , there were 21 salvos fired by the British battleship...
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by dunmunro »

alecsandros wrote:
dunmunro wrote:


Salvo 14 was still reasonably accurate but after that PoW is constantly turning.
Why was she turning so constantly ?

Actualy, Prince of Wales fired 3 more salvos, on local control, from turret Y before stopping fire alltogether.

In total , there were 21 salvos fired by the British battleship...
It actually took about two minutes to turn away from the wreckage and then turn back to her previous course, and with the loss of Hood, Leach had turn again to open the range as he could not risk PoW alone, inside her Immune zone (Bismarck also turned at this time).
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by alecsandros »

dunmunro wrote:Bismarck also turned at this time).
Yes, Bismarck turned to avoid the imaginary torpedoes...

There is no evidence pertaining to the breaking off the action by Prince of Wales due to "immunity zone" concerns.
What was of concern was that Bismarck was straddling consistently and hitting repeatedly, while the Prince had more and more breakdonws.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck vs. Rodney: hand to hand?

Post by dunmunro »

alecsandros wrote:
dunmunro wrote:Bismarck also turned at this time).
Yes, Bismarck turned to avoid the imaginary torpedoes...

There is no evidence pertaining to the breaking off the action by Prince of Wales due to "immunity zone" concerns.
What was of concern was that Bismarck was straddling consistently and hitting repeatedly, while the Prince had more and more breakdonws.

You keep changing your story. First you claim that it was being under fire that reduced PoW's accuracy, and then when presented with the facts, now change to something else. The facts are that the RN did do IZ calculations and PoW was getting too close to Bismarck and Leach would have had to turn away to maintain range and inclination to reduce the risk to his ship, however, the fact that PoW was also under the concentrated fire of a BB and CA was another legitimate concern.
The key facts here are that PoW's gunnery accuracy fell off because of her turns, not because she was under fire.

In fact we can see this even better from the timing of Bismarck's hit's:
http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... owhits.gif
and compare the above times with the track chart:
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... encIVb.gif

PoW was already turning before Bismarck's first hit and it is easy to see that Bismarck was also crossing PoW's "T" which was yet another reason Leach to turn away.
Post Reply