OOps you are correct with the Bismarck.
Best World war two warships?
- Thread starter carpenoctem1689
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Actually, it was spelled Bismarck, in honour of the famous 19th century GermanDerAdlerIstGelandet said:
You have stated that both British shells or torpedoes didn't penetrate her hull, then how do you explain that when the Prince of Wales hit her with 3 shells during the action against the POW and Hood, she shipped over 2000 tons of salt water into her hull, leaving her 3 degrees down at the hull and with a 9 degree list to port ( which was only corrected by counter flooding).
Also the torpedo which hit the rudder also caused extensive flooding in the steering and adjacent compartments which foiled attempts to repair them.
So as we can see, even before the final battle the Bismarcks hull had suffered considerable damage.
The tale of the 'undamaged hull' is a myth
ps An excellent and highly detailed account of the Bismarcks final battle (with links to the same on the loss of HMS Hood )
Bismarck's Final Battle - Part 1
hope its of help
Henk
Master Sergeant
Like redcoat said....
Ok the whole thing of the Bismarck is that she was penetrated on two places by both torpedo's and a shell. The first one was the shell of the battle with the Hood and Prince of Wales that penetrated the bow and went right through the bow and thus caused flooding and her speed thus reduced. If you look at the following picture you would see what I mean. The shell came from the Prince of Wales and it caused the shut down of the port boiler room due to flooding and the forward feul could not be used due to the flooding and also was the cause of the speed being reduced.
and this is the hole in the hull.
The second one was the torpedo that caused the rudders to lock and made a hole near the stern below the steering gear rooms flooding these compartments and jamming the rudder mechanism.
Like we all know who knows something about the German trained crew of battleships that they were famous for their well placed salvos and were great aimers.
Now a battle between the Bismarck and the Iowa class battleship would be great to see but I must say that the crew makes the ship what it is and not the ship it self and also the commander of the ship.
The Bismarck was scuttled and not torpedoed like said by the Royal Navy and I must say the crew of the Bismarck fought like real men against the enemy although everything was allready lost, they were brave men.
My sources is the book The Discovery of the Bismarck by Robert D Ballard that did interviews with the survivors of the Bismarck and I have the video of it as well. The pictures come from Bismarck Tirpitz.
Ok the whole thing of the Bismarck is that she was penetrated on two places by both torpedo's and a shell. The first one was the shell of the battle with the Hood and Prince of Wales that penetrated the bow and went right through the bow and thus caused flooding and her speed thus reduced. If you look at the following picture you would see what I mean. The shell came from the Prince of Wales and it caused the shut down of the port boiler room due to flooding and the forward feul could not be used due to the flooding and also was the cause of the speed being reduced.
and this is the hole in the hull.
The second one was the torpedo that caused the rudders to lock and made a hole near the stern below the steering gear rooms flooding these compartments and jamming the rudder mechanism.
Like we all know who knows something about the German trained crew of battleships that they were famous for their well placed salvos and were great aimers.
Now a battle between the Bismarck and the Iowa class battleship would be great to see but I must say that the crew makes the ship what it is and not the ship it self and also the commander of the ship.
The Bismarck was scuttled and not torpedoed like said by the Royal Navy and I must say the crew of the Bismarck fought like real men against the enemy although everything was allready lost, they were brave men.
My sources is the book The Discovery of the Bismarck by Robert D Ballard that did interviews with the survivors of the Bismarck and I have the video of it as well. The pictures come from Bismarck Tirpitz.
Glider
Captain
An excellent article and I thank you for posting it. I had not realised how much damage was done by he 18in torpedo's over and above the jamming of the rudders.
It also shows how well the POW did in what can only be described as the worst possible situation and the way she used Radar to assist the Gunnery.
It also shows how well the POW did in what can only be described as the worst possible situation and the way she used Radar to assist the Gunnery.
Henk
Master Sergeant
Yes, but the sad thing is that all her main guns ceased to work during the battle and thus retreated due to that. Still what the Germans had on their ships they could use it effectively.
The IOWA was superior to BISMARK in several key ways- 1) IOWA had 9 16in guns to BISMARKS 8 15in (IOWA had a superior fire control system. 2) IOWA was faster than BISMARK (32k to BISMARKS 29k). 3) IOWA had by far a superior turn radius. 4) IOWA's protection was based on the 'all or nothing' principal, which meant that all of the ships vitals and magazines were protected in an armoured box like structure with 2 large armoured bulkheads and a heavy armoured deck on top of the bulkheads. The BISMARK was not designed in such a way. Many of her command control stations were exposed to enemy fire. 5) IOWA had 20 rapid fire 5" secondary batteries. As for 'no damage from shell fire', one must remember that in the final engaement with BISMARK, the British battelships were to close. There shells tended to slam into the ships structures then actually plunge into the ships vitals. Also the outdated Battelcruiser concept is justified. Remember the British tended to regard them as capital ships. Many of the losses of Battecruisers in the Battle of Jutland in WWI were do to fire from other Battlecruisers.
Glider
Captain
pgm1962a said:
Can someone tell me why people always compare the Bismark to the Iowa. One was designed prewar when radar was in its infancy. The other built at the end of the war with all the lessons from the war built in, was 10-15% bigger.
Of course the Iowa was better, she damn well should have been.
If you going to compare like with like, then compare the Bismark with the N Carolina. They were designed, laid down and completed within 12 months of each other and are a true comparison.
redcoat said:
Yes several other people had allready corrected me on that mistake and I am well aware of who it was named after. See the flag under my name.
redcoat said:
No I stated that no shells penetrated it. If I said torpedos that was typo mistake. Everyone knows that aprox. 2 torpedos penetrated her hull.
redcoat said:
No it has been proven by Robert Ballard, Cameron and several other people who inspected the hull on there dives.
Henk
Master Sergeant
Firstly are you blind or something cant you see how we said it is Bismarck and not Bismark? And no it was not 29 knots for the Bismarck it is 30.8 knots top speed.
The fact is that the Bismarck and Iowa were some of the best battleships of WW2 and that is why they compare them.
The Bismarck will always stay a legend.
The thing is that if your radar was destroyed by enemy fire that hit the mark most of the time and your crew can not get to hit the enemy what will it help you then? Like I have said what will the ship help you if its crew is not well trained?
Remember for those of you who do not know it is BISMARCK and NOT BISMARK.
The fact is that the Bismarck and Iowa were some of the best battleships of WW2 and that is why they compare them.
The Bismarck will always stay a legend.
The thing is that if your radar was destroyed by enemy fire that hit the mark most of the time and your crew can not get to hit the enemy what will it help you then? Like I have said what will the ship help you if its crew is not well trained?
Remember for those of you who do not know it is BISMARCK and NOT BISMARK.
Henk
Master Sergeant
The ship was not penetrated by two torpedo's but one and it was a shell from the Prince of Wales that went in and out of the bow. The dives done by Dr Robert D. Ballard proved that the British did not sink her with torpedo's but that she was scuttled.
Look at the picture I posted of the bow with the hole in it with the fake bow wave still showing. If you guys want more pictures of the hull I would be glad to post some for you.
Read the THE DISCOVERY OF THE BISMARCK by Robert D. Ballard and you would get a new look into the story of the ship and what really happend.
Look at the picture I posted of the bow with the hole in it with the fake bow wave still showing. If you guys want more pictures of the hull I would be glad to post some for you.
Read the THE DISCOVERY OF THE BISMARCK by Robert D. Ballard and you would get a new look into the story of the ship and what really happend.
Glider
Captain
Henk said:
Bismarck was 29 knots not 30.8 which seems like a trials speed not one that reflects operational loading.
Bismarch was and always will be a legend. However being a Legend doesn't make you the best which she clearly wasn't, not by a long shot. The Iowa was and always will be better than the Bismark.
You seem to be making a huge assumption that the Iowa (or any other battleship) without its Radar wouldn't be able to hit anything due to the lack of training of the crew. Anyone who served on the Iowa would I suggest not agree with that.
Pretty difficult to agree with that when you consider how well the POW did with huge difficulties and the very very limited number of shells she actually fired.
The Tirpitz/Bismarch class should be measured against equivalent ships, designed and built in the same period. That shows how advanced or otherwise the design was.
redcoat said:If the hull was not penetrated by a shell , how did over 2000 tons of sea water enter her hull, during the action with the POW and the Hood ????
Did a sailor accidentally leave a water tap running ??????
Her hull was never penetrated by shells. Read some interviews from Bismarck survivors. Ill take there word over anyone elses anyday.
Bismarck survivors reported shells exploding in at least one starboard boiler room and a port turbine room during the final battle. One of PoWs shells had earlier caused flooding in a boiler room and turbine room, which had to be abandoned.
According to Ballard (and the later British expedition) Bismarck is buried in silt up to her waterline for most of the length of the hull, so it's not possible to say how many underwater penetrations occured.
According to Ballard (and the later British expedition) Bismarck is buried in silt up to her waterline for most of the length of the hull, so it's not possible to say how many underwater penetrations occured.
Hop said:
According to the survivors in the interviews (The links to the interviews are posted in a thread here) shells penetrated the superstructure, turrets and so forth but no the hull. Torpedos yes but not shells.
Hop said:
That is true however...
redcoat said:
According to the same survivors that I am talking about above the Bismarck did not take water until she was struck by torpedos from the Swordfish and then later from the Destroyers in the final battle.
pgm1962a said:
Might as well jump in here about the Battlecruiser arguement.
Don't think it was a viable concept. It was essentially a Cruiser with Battleship armament. Made it very vunerable to Battleships. Unfortunately, many people (admirals in this case) see what looks like a Battleship and they treat it like a Battleship.
The concept was flawed in much the same way the idea of the Tank Destroyer was flawed. Don't make Tank Killers, make Killer Tanks. Something that will survive in the give and take of a battle with vessels their own size. If it could not stand up to ships with the same guns, it was not much good.
However, to give the devil his due, when the concept came around it had some merit. This can be seen in the battle of the Falklands where two British BCs ran down and sank two German Armored Cruisers.
But by the time WW2 came around, the concept was done. The Bismark V Hood, Duke of York V Scharnhorst and Washington V Kirishima proved the point. Even the cruisers of the time took one down (Hiei V Everybody).
It was an interesting concept that might've had limited viability in the early part of the last century, but the combination of aircraft, weapons advancements, warship design advancements, all rendered it obsolete.
If they are saying that, they are wrong !DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
KBismarck.com - Operation Rheinübung
"However, the Bismarck had been hit on the port side by three heavy shells probably from the Prince of Wales. The first shell hit Bismarck amidships below the waterline in section XIV, passed through the outer hull just below the main belt, and exploded against the 45-mm armoured torpedo bulkhead. This hit caused the flooding of the port electric plant No. 4. The adjacent No. 2 boiler room also took some water, but this was contained by the damage control parties through the use of hammocks. The second shell hit the bow in section XXI, just above the waterline. This projectile entered the port side, passed through the ship above the armoured deck without exploding, and exited the starboard side leaving a hole of 1.5 meters in diameter. Around 2,000 tons of salt water got into the forecastle, and as a consequence of this 1,000 tons of fuel oil were blocked there. The third shell simply passed through a boat without any appreciable damage at all.
As a result of these hits, the top speed of the Bismarck was reduced to 28 knots. The battleship was 3º down by the bow and had a 9º list to port. Because of this, the blades tips of the starboard propeller were out of the water at times. Therefore the starboard void tanks in sections II and III were flooded to reduce the bow trim and list. "
Bismarck - The History - The Bismarck Escapes
"Bismarck had received three hits altogether. One had carried away the captain's motor-boat amidships, damaged the aircraft launching gear, landed in the sea beyond without exploding. The second had also struck amidships, penetrated the ship's side beneath the armored belt, destroyed one of the dynamoes, put No. 2 boiler-room and its two boilers out of action, wounded five men by scalding, caused some flooding. The third and most serious hit had struck the port bow about the level of the water-line, penetrated two oil tanks, come out the starboard side without exploding. This hit not only let sea-water into the oil tanks and quantities of oil into the sea, but knocked out the suction valves, and cut off from the engines a further thousand tons of oil.
Because of flooding the bow was down by two or three degrees, there was a list to port of nine degrees, the starboard propeller was coming out of the water. Captain Lindemann ordered counterflooding aft to restore the trim, and maximum speed was reduced to 28 knots. Collision mats were put down to cover the two holes in the bows, divers were sent to the flooded compartments. Presently the collision mats stopped any more water getting into the ship, though the oil continued to leak out of it. Some officers suggested a big reduction of speed and further counterflooding to bring the bows right out of the water, enable the holes to be repaired by welding; but Admiral Lütjens was not prepared to risk the dangers of delay. Schlüter (a technician from Blohm and Voss) suggested lightening the bows by cutting loose the anchors and cables, dumping them overboard, but this idea was also rejected. Despite the difficult working conditions the divers finaly managed to make temporary repairs, pump out some of the water so the bows began to rise."
