Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
629 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I really believe in higher intervention. How could a slow bi plane carrying one torpedo fly through all that anti aircraft fire, drop a torpedo and damage the rudder and steering gear? If only the Graf Zeppelin was completed and shipping with the Bismarck. Those little bi planes would have been gone in minutes with carrier base FW109 knocking them out. Britian had to send there entire navy to destroy one battleship.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
I really believe in higher intervention. How could a slow bi plane carrying one torpedo fly through all that anti aircraft fire, drop a torpedo and damage the rudder and steering gear? If only the Graf Zeppelin was completed and shipping with the Bismarck. Those little bi planes would have been gone in minutes with carrier base FW109 knocking them out. Britian had to send there entire navy to destroy one battleship.
the fact that the Germans on the Bismarck were trying to evade the trap was the cause the biplane was able to penetrate the defences and thus damage the steering. i am sure the survivors from the battle had stated this in their debriefing.

Dave
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,697 Posts
And then there is the issue of just why anybody thinks the Graf Zeppelin would have carried FW-190 Traeger? I mean - the palm (with test aircraft built) was for it to carry navalized Bf-109s.

Bismarck was a decent design, but far from an outstanding one. Armor scheme was poorly thought out, a pretty good argument can be made that she wasted a lot of displacement by having separate anti-surface action and anti-aircraft batteries, the turret armor appears to have been unable to rsist fore from British BBs and such.

Far from the "best", despite the reputation gained by the "Golden BB hit on Hood and the level of effort the British felt they ahd to apply to the destruction of the ship.
 

·
Super Moderator Platinum Member Zombie Killer
Joined
·
4,049 Posts
Crap, wasn't it this same bunch of Fairy Swordfish guys that got screwed up and almost torpedoed the Sheffield but only defective magnetic detonators saved the Sheffield...? They rearmed with contact detonators and went back for the Bismarck and almost missed when they hit the rudder and put her in slow circle....
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,697 Posts
Crap, wasn't it this same bunch of Fairy Swordfish guys that got screwed up and almost torpedoed the Sheffield but only defective magnetic detonators saved the Sheffield...? They rearmed with contact detonators and went back for the Bismarck and almost missed when they hit the rudder and put her in slow circle....
Lot of luck, good and bad, on both sides in that action.
 
P

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
How could a slow bi plane carrying one torpedo fly through all that anti aircraft fire, drop a torpedo and damage the rudder and steering gear?

Apparently the fire control computers on the AA guns were unable to cope with the slowness of the biplanes. So their very slowness actually saved them from the AA fire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,023 Posts
Bismark gets all the hype thanks to a song about her ,and her lucky win over Hood. Now the Yamato ,there was a battleship.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,346 Posts
A very interesting article about battleship design and comparisons.
http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/Features/BuildBetter.htm
They rank the Iowa class best, followed by Yamato and Bismark in that order, but since the ships never met, we'll never really know.

There is some evidence the article is correct-
The Bismark was definitely under armored. Its main battery was rapid firing and accurate. Of its enemies the Hood had typically poor battlecruiser armor, while King George V was new, hadn't "worked up" and still suffered from poor quality, hurried work.
The Yamato and Musashi had a poor anti-aircraft armament arrangement, apparently poor defences against torpedoes, inadequate bulkheads and counter-flooding provisions, and neither ever hit an enemy with their main battery.
The Iowa class apparently didn't suffer any significant damage in the primary role of AA protection for carrier task forces, and were effective against lighter japanese ships and shore targets.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,171 Posts
I'm fascinated by the underwater surveys of the Bismark. Here are some excerpts from Wikipedia:

The documentary film Expedition: Bismarck (2002), directed by James Cameron and filmed using MIR submersibles, reconstructs the events leading to the sinking of Bismarck. His findings were that there was not enough damage below the waterline of the ship to confirm that she was actually sunk by shells and torpedoes. In fact, upon close inspection of the wreckage, it was confirmed that none of the torpedoes or shells penetrated the second layer of the inner hull. Hence this supports the Germans' story of having scuttled their own ship.

The third survey found no underwater penetrations of the ship's fully-armoured citadel and only four direct hit holes on it above the waterline, all of them on one side, as delivered by the Rodney's 16 inch (406 mm) guns. Each of those hits killed an estimated 150 to 200 sailors. Huge dents showed that the 14 inch (356 mm) shells fired by the King George V bounced off the Wotan type German belt armour[3]. Interior ROV footage showed that the "terrible destruction" the Anglo-American expedition reported was in fact the torpedo bulges, which were designed to absorb the energy of torpedoes and plunging shells. Underneath the torn bulge sheeting, the ship's 320 mm (12.6 inch) thick main belt armour appeared to be intact.

The American expedition's final conclusions were strikingly different from the findings of the Anglo-American team. They estimated that Bismarck could still float for at least a day when the British vessels ceased fire and could have been captured by the Royal Navy. They concluded the direct cause of sinking was due to self-scuttling, the sabotage of engine room valves by her crew, as claimed by German survivors. A detailed look at a modern computer analysis of the hull's eventual impact on the sea bottom explains some damage as a result of hydrodynamic impact shock inside the ship, which was still apparently girded by an uninterrupted curtain of armour.

In all 2,876 shells of various calibres were fired by the British ships. Approximately 300-400 hit. Only two hits fully penetrating the main armour were located. These holes were on the starboard side, suggesting that they were 16" shells from Rodney. Two other penetrations were found on the port side, albeit above the main armor belt, and appeared to be 14" shells. In all 714 14 inch and 16 inch shells were fired by the two battleships, of which about 80 hit the Bismarck. Only four penetrated the belt. In successive hits main gun shells destroyed A turret, B turret, each director and the bridge.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,697 Posts
Hood did NOT have "typically poor battlecruiser armor". She had an armor suite equal or superior to the Queen Elizabeth class and was generally deemed to be the first fast battleship, though she was required to combine tactically with teh battlecruisers when built, and for a long time after as she was so much faster than any other capital ship in service.

Hood's weakness had to do with teh amount of ship taht needed armor if it was to avoid local weak spots that might be struck in case of ill-fortune. In fact - taht seems to be what happened. Shell went in over the main belt, at an area where the armor deck didn't join the belt and penetrated a medium caliber (4") magazine after passing through the fairly thin after engine-room bulkhead. That magazine blew up and set off the after main magazines.

By the way - Hood has also been found and examined. She is, because of the magazine explosions, in much worse shape than Bismarck, despite taking fewer hits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,761 Posts
The Hood was twice the ship the Bismark was. It was only because of extremely high swells during the storm that the Hood could not find her mark - a lucky shot by the Bismark was the only advantage they had that night.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
93,697 Posts
Well, misidentification of target and initially laying on Prinz Eugen didn't help Hood a lot. And while an excellent ship of her own generation (indeed, one that pushed the envelop, and pretty hard then), she was not "twice the ship" Bismarck was. Still - her loss was both a matter of ill-luck and some design weaknesses.
 

·
Super Moderator Platinum Member Zombie Killer
Joined
·
4,049 Posts
I see gods hand ,1 torpedo in the right place etc !,just my opinion but gods hand .
Well, it might have been, but, he was slinging 15" shells and not torpedoes at the Hood....
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top