What was the most powerful battleship in a straight duel, May 1941?

What was the most powerful battleship in a straight-out duel, May 1941?

  • Total voters
    92

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The Bismarck was great for her time and was a great all round gun platform for a battleship and was thus very powerful when set loose.

The Nelson had a lot of problems in her design and if you look at the battle against the Bismarck where the Rodney had structure problems after the battle that none of the other battleships had.

The Japanese had big guns and great armor, but they did not have the right tactics in using them.
 
renrich said:
Del, it sticks in my mind that the 38000 yard shot took place in the Med. It may have been one of the Queen Elisabeths.
Click to expand...

The max. range of the UK 15"/42 was 32.000 yards (supercharges were never issued to ships with an elevation of 30 deg. and as it appears were never used operationally). The max. range of the UK 14"/45 was 36.500 yards and 38.000 yards with supercharges (never to be used on them operationally). The max. range of the UK 16"/45 finally was 38.000 yards. Basically, it should have been Nelson or Rodney but I have not found any mention of a long range gunnery action of them.

That´s very interesting. Thanks for sharing this information with us, Renrich!
The 40mm Bofors (belt fed version) was also retrofitted on Prinz Eugen, demonstrating that it was considered to be the best medium AAA, by allies axis. Whether or not they used mine rounds on them, I don´t know.
 
delcyros said:
So You are taking Bismarck´s gunnery at her final battle as representative with the conditions of the engagement? I take this as a methodical mistake. Comparing Bismarck with PoW is more even.
Click to expand...

If we were only comparing FC at this one battle, yes. I'm saying that the "best" British Battleship in combat was the Nelson class, not the K.G.V.'s


that's my point though, the better British radar makes up for the superior German FC system. I don't think FC would be a deciding factor in a clean match between Rodney Bismarck, guns, armour position would all be factored in, and luck would play a large part too.



I can agree with you about halfway here, the Hood was overdue for an overhaul at the ship yards, which would have included increasing the deck armour, a recognized weakness by the Admiralty. If it had been completed then Hood could be considered the equivilent of a "fast BB". I also don't think Hood's protection was better than the WW1 "Q. E.'s"

I found an interesting analysis of Hood's destruction

Loss of HMS Hood - Part 1

Henk said:
The Nelson had a lot of problems in her design and if you look at the battle against the Bismarck where the Rodney had structure problems after the battle that none of the other battleships had.
Click to expand...

What problems are you talking about?


Delcyros Do you think the fact that Richelieu had quad gun turrets was a factor on her large dispersal? How good was the performance the KGV class quad turrets? {once they were working!) I've always thought that the KGV's should have had 3 x triple 15" turrets instead of the design that they did.
 
But is that true? Rodney´s action log against Bismarck showed clearly that she achieved straddles much later than PoW at DS and DoY at NortCape. Her FC lacks compared with Bismarck: 15ft. RF vs 34.7ft RF, an FC table vs analogous FC computer with integrated input, this list could be continued...
Rodney also had only ONE engagement, the KGV class had several.
Finally, Rodney was very, very lucky not to get hit. Her armour scheme is defective. The innermounted, inclined main belt does add protection only FOR THE UPPER HULL. It terminates 2 ft. below dwl. ANY IMPACT ON THE WATERLINE AT DISTANCES, AT WHICH THE BELT SHOULD STOP THE PROJECTILE OTHERWISE WILL END UP GOING UNDER THE BELT WELL INTO THE VITALS UNHINDERED. The drawing below is for a projectile with an angle of fall of 16 deg (=ca. 21.000 yards for the 15"/52, if hit on the belt, the projectile achieves partial penetration out to 20.000 yards). The side protection therefore has no immune zone at all for the embedded vitals (machinery spaces magazines).
The turrets are reasonably well protected, the barbettes are not. The 15" barbettes are only above the unarmoured weatherdeck, below the deck it´s two deck deep only 12" thick, which will be defeated out to 30.000 yards and thus beyond any fighting distances. This is important because these thinner barbettes are not shielded by additional citadell armour and weatherdeck armour. It will attract flukes. The CT, too, is only 12" thick. The deck armour over magazines is excellent but the deck armour over machinery spaces is just mediocre and may be defeated starting from 24.000 yards. Finally I would like to stress that the whole waterline length is unprotected (the belt is innermounted) and thus subject to off centre flooding. Add in the UK philosophy of low metacentric stability and You end up with a design asking for problems.

I also don't think Hood's protection was better than the WW1 "Q. E.'s"
Click to expand...
Can I ask You to elaborate Your opinion?
 

Attachments

  • nelson.jpg
    98.9 KB · Views: 437
delcyros said:
Can I ask You to elaborate Your opinion?
Click to expand...

Hmmm that's what I had read in reference, but now I'm wondering...

Are you saying that the Hood had a better armour scheme than the Q.E.'s? After the Hood's first reconstruction or before? Did they not have better deck armour? Or did they have design flaws as well?

Two questions Delcyros. I'd be interested to hear your opinion


1. Are quad turrets inaccurate because of the 4 guns, or is that just a problem with the Richelieu?

freebird said:
Delcyros Do you think the fact that Richelieu had quad gun turrets was a factor on her large dispersal? How good was the performance the KGV class quad turrets? {once they were working!)
Click to expand...

2. Could wing turrets be mounted in a modern {1940's} battleship without compromising stability structural integrity? {using better design methods of construction} Or are wing turrets inherently flawed?
 

I am a firm believer that Hoods reputation is reduced unjustifiedly by her rapid demise at denmark street. If You compare Hoods armour layout with that of Nagato, Mackensen class BC´s (also approaches to a fast BB) and Dunkerque, she comes out best. If you set her up against Maryland class BB´s, it´s more difficult to tell in between. I am tempted to give the Marylands an edge due to their consistent armour scheme but it depends on the condition. Only the Nelson appears to be solidly better, but not decisevely better, and her armour scheme was terribly flawed and recognized for poor compromisses. HMS HOOD was better protected against a larger number of threads but definetely had some weak points remaining.
Hood has compared to the QE´s: A) more armour weight (relative absolute), B) better armour quality (esspeccially for the homogenious armour), C) a much better distribution of armour and D) a more thoroughly laid out scheme in space.

a. exposed vitals:
a.a. -turret faces (Hood: 15"; QE: 13"); turret roofs (Hood 5" flat, QE: 5" sloped)
a.b. -barbettes above wd. (Hood 15"; QE: 9-10"); barbettes below 1st (Hood: 6" - 9"; QE: 6" - 9"); barbettes above ad. (Hood 3" - 9"; QE: 4" - 6")
a.c. - CT (Hood: 10"; QE: 11"), comm tubes (Hood: 3"; QE: 4")

exposed vitals: other than the CT, the turrets and barbettes of Hood enjoi substantially more armour protection than those of the QE´s.

b. embedded vitals:
b.a. side protection main belt (Hood 13" inclined 12 deg. (=effectively 14.5 to 15.8" vertical, depending on impact angle); QE: 13" vertical), both are very shallow. Lower side belt (Hood: 3"; QE: none); Upper side belt (Hood 7" inclined 12 deg.; QE: 13" tapered to 6" vertical); citadell armour (Hood 5" inclined 12 deg.; QE: 6" DECLINED!)
b.b. ship ends: (Hood: 3" to 4" contured; QE: 4" - 5" contured)
b.c. internal side protection: QE:1" slope and the 2" torpedo bulkhead.
Hood: extensive internal protection: slopes 2" followed by 2" torpedo bulkhead and another 2" armoured bulkhead.
b.d. armoured weatherdeck (Hood: .75" to 2"; QE: 1")
b.e. main armour deck (Hood: 2" - 2.5"; QE: 1.25" - 2")
b.f. lower armour deck (Hood: 1.5" to 2" machinery, 3" magazines; QE: 1" machinery magazines)

embedded vitals: substantial advantage Hood. Altough partly flawed (a projectile may pass the upper side belt and the slope afterwards with luck as it seems happened at DS), this flaw was not uncommon for other ships (QE, Nagato). The inclined main armour belt increases it´s effectiveness and stopping power against incoming projectiles.

1. Are quad turrets inaccurate because of the 4 guns, or is that just a problem with the Richelieu?
Click to expand...
Without having seen sources or investigations what actually was the source of the problem, I would say that it was a design related problem. Four gun turrets are more difficult to construct in a sense to assure low element interferences and it is possible that this design was somehow messed up. But the gun itselfe may contribute to the problem. The Dunkerques, however does not have such an overly large pattern, so it cannot be a quad only problem. Low dispersion is a design aim which often was not reached in the first by some of the innovative, pioneering steps (Nelson-class, Richelieu).

2. Could wing turrets be mounted in a modern {1940's} battleship without compromising stability structural integrity? {using better design methods of construction} Or are wing turrets inherently flawed?
Click to expand...
It is possible. But I don´t think it would have been advantageous. Internal space is compromised and the expansion space of the tds is deleted when an wing turret is implemented, which was the principal reason why those designs have been abandoned when underwater threads became important.
 
The turrets of the Rodney bounced out of their mountings and the interior of the ship was so badly damaged that she could never face a enemy battleship again. There were a lot of flooding and everything on the walls of the ship popped off.

Read the after battle report of the American crew that was on board her taking the ship back to the US for refit.
 

British radar wasnt really better than the German one in 1941. As I understand, the British sets were primarly search radars, and their bearing accuracy was not soo good as the Seetakt sets, which were primarly designed as gunnery radars.

Friedman has more, I`d have to researh it a bit.

@ Delcyros,

Thanks for the Nelson armor scheme, I had no idea this design had such big gaps on its armor protection.. the price for big guns and a few thick plates at such displacement..!
 
Freebird...your comment that Bismarck scored no hits against the British battleships during her last stand presented perhaps as "evidence" that would indicate "poor" gunnery systems is 100% flawed.

It reminds me of the only combat action the Jean Bart had during the war against the USS Massachusetts. The Jean Bart albeit immobilized at a pier in the harbor -plus being incomplete- opened fire that was everything but inaccurate even if no hits were scored on US vessels -her fire came close to hitting the USS Augusta though-. The Massachusetts and other Navy vessels had the advantage of speed and possibilities for manouvering, while the French gunners had to man the turrets of a platform deprived of any speed and maneuvering.

Well, Bismarck found herself in a nearly identical situation during her last stand even is her speed wasn´t zero as it happened to Jean Bart.

So my conclusions...Number one: had Bismarck not been hit by the Swordfish torpedo, the frenzied Home Fleet would have never made contact with her in the first place due to the skilled command of Lütjenz and her superior speed if compared with the slow HMS Rodney and even the modern HMS King George V.

Number Two: if for some reason the Home Fleet could have made contact with a Bismarck running at full speed, then i do not want to think of the outcome of such battle.

I will say the same thing again and again: all that effort and commitment invested to downplay a battleship that during her first battle, when confronting 2 enemy battleships, turned one into a flare and horribly pounded the other -that could have been finished off as well- seems...odd.
 
I have to agree with Udet.

Hitting a ship which course is 100% predictable is easy, but hitting a ship which course is unpredictable and meanwhile not being able to lay all guns on because you can't steer you own vessel is a million times harder. Now on top of that the Bismarck didn't just have to face one foe, no it had to fight off three first rate battleships including allot of smaller cruisers and the like, an impossible task for any battleship.

The Bismarck showcased its superiority in the 1 vs 2 duel against the HMS HOOD RODNEY, in which Bismarck sunk one and completely mauled the other.

I'm not sure any Battleship throughout the war could compete with Bismarck Tirpitz when it came to gunnery, they were just amazingly accurate.
 

Kurfurst, as I understand the radar was superior. By I'm not an expert in radar, if you find data to the contrary I'd be interested to see.



Where did you get this information Henk? The Rodney was damaged in a storm in Dec 1940, was on her way to the US before rushing back to chase Bismarck. After her refit she escorted convoys bound for Malta {Halberd Pedestal}, and escorted the landings for Husky Avalanche {Sicily Salerno} to prevent the Italian battleships from interfering. Hardly the place to send a ship that "couldn't face an enemy battleship" I've never seen this claim, what is your source?


Correct, I agree with you 100% on this. Lutjens was very astute in finding a way to shake off the British cruisers, and could not have been caught before France.

Number Two: if for some reason the Home Fleet could have made contact with a Bismarck running at full speed, then i do not want to think of the outcome of such battle.
Click to expand...

The Bismarck was capable of running at higher speed, the damage was to the rudder, not the propellers. If the Bismarck had been caught by "The Home Fleet" 4 battleships 2 Battlecruisers, 5 heavy cruisers? {Rodney, Ramillies, King G.V., Repulse, Renown} I think the outcome would be the same, although the British ships may have been damaged.
.

Udet, don't misunderstand me I'm not "downplaying" Bismarck, it was a very well designed ship. {not surprising for German } I posted a poll to see what opinions were, as there has been a myth that developed about it as a "supership", biggest guns, biggest Battleship etc. that simply are not true. In naval warfare you build the best ship that you can but as delcyros said alot of it turns out to be chance.

delcyros said:
The destruction of HMS Hood was unlucky and the engagement could easily have outturned with Bismarck resting on the seabed.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your excellent data Delcyros, very helpful


The "King George" battleships thank you for the endorsement, but to be honest the design of the only British battleships in WWII that were newer than 1920's left alot to be desired.

The Bismarck showcased its superiority in the 1 vs 2 duel against the HMS HOOD RODNEY, {you mean the Prince of Wales here} in which Bismarck sunk one and completely mauled the other.
Click to expand...

As delcyros has said it was an unlucky hit on the Hood {although the Admiralty's earlier warnings about the armour weakness at the hull/deck joint were ignored}

And as for the Prince of Wales, some of the problems of this unlucky ship stem from Churchill interfering with the proper "working up" of the ship and partly led to the problems with the guns, over half of which were out of action by malfunction, even without being hit by Bismarck. TI would point out the damage to the bridge FC of the PoW was serious, but the ship was able to stay with the Norfolk Suffolk and could have re-joined the battle if needed. {apparently they fixed the damn gun problems! }

I'm not sure any Battleship throughout the war could compete with Bismarck Tirpitz when it came to gunnery, they were just amazingly accurate.
Click to expand...

I guess we'll never know at this point.
 
Quite possibly, but the British had the ability to shadow her and her effectiveness would have been significantly been reduced as she was the hunted, not the hunter.

Number Two: if for some reason the Home Fleet could have made contact with a Bismarck running at full speed, then i do not want to think of the outcome of such battle.
Click to expand...
This is being a little negative on the RN. The Bimark lost the front two turrets to one hit from the Rodney, and C turret was lost (not penetrated but knocked out) by a 14in shell. The British were capable of inflicting severe damage to the Bismark and the result would have been the same.

Individually the Bismark had a clear advantage, but to take on two was to much.[/QUOTE]


I understand your view but the fact is that the Hood didn't play a part in the battle leaving the POW on her own. Had the Hood stayed in the fight then the outcome could have been very different, certainly the Bismark would have taken more damage.

Its also worth remembering that all ships have a weak spot and the fact that the 18in torpedo did so much damage was down to a design flaw in the Bismark. The damage was a lot more than the stuck rudders.
There was severe damage to the entire stem of the ship and it is believed that part of the stem of the ship collapsed onto the rudders. This was an endemic failure on all German heavy ships and similar damage happened on the Prinz Eugen and Lutzow.
 
Type 279

Essentially Type 79 plus an Accurate Ranging Panel RBL10 (range 7nm), produced in 1940. It was credited with a range of 65-95nm on an airplane at 16,000ft, 27-40nm at 3000ft, 16-24nm at 1000ft and 5-7.5nm at 100ft. Range accuracy was 50yds on the detailed scale between 2000 and 14,000yds and bearing accuracy, as in Type 79, was 5°. As in the earlier radar, it used 7-30-microsecond pulses (peak power 70kW, PRF 50) and range discrimination was 500yds.

Type 284

Main battery surface gunnery radar, actually the first of the 282-285 series. The first production set was fitted to HMS Nelson in June 1940 after tests late in 1939 showed detection of a convoy at 30,000yds and of a cruiser at 18,000. The first production set was installed aboard King George V, with a total of 24 dipoles (12 in Nelson). The total installation consisted of a pair of 21ft x 2ft 6in trough reflectors, each with 24 dipoles (one to send, one to receive) fixed to the director; in some ships only 12 dipoles per antenna could be accommodated, in an 11 ft installation. Peak power was 25kW (1.7-microsecond pulses, PRF 500) and claimed accuracy was 200yds, 1-2° on the 24,000yd scale and 500yds on the 48,000yd scale. The beam was 8° wide.

Seetakt

The first of the German naval radars, installed in 1936 aboard the 'pocket battleship' Graf Spee, operating at 80cm (368mc/s). Peak power was 7kW, for a range of 10nm against large ships (6 against cruisers). The antenna was a mattress fixed to the rangefinder, its upper part used for reception and its lower for transmission. The reception portion was divided in two tor more accurate bearing measurement, and accuracy was 0.2°.

FuMO 21

Light cruiser and destroyer radar, originally designated FMG 39G(gL), on a bridge pedestal, with an effective range of about 10nm. First tested in the cruiser Nurnberg. It was similar in characteristics to the other 1939 radars, FuMO 22 and 23. Peak power was 8kW (PRF 500 5-microsecond pulses), and antenna dimensions 4 x 2m.

FuMO 22

The standard German capital ship radar of 1939, accurate to within 5° and capable of detecting a battleship at 13nm. Originally designated FMG 39G(gO).

FuMO 23

Radar for mounting on a fire-control director, originally designated FMG 39G(gP). Mounted aboard Bismarck and Prinz Eugen.

FuMO 24

First of the improved 1940 series of radars, designed to be mounted on a pedestal on a ship's bridge. Peak power was 8kW and antenna dimensions 6 x 2m. In 1944 many were upgraded to FuMO 32 by the replacement of their transmitters by 125kW units. The others in this series were FuMO 25 through 28, and they replaced the FuMO 21 series. However, naval radar production after 1941 was very limited, so that these 1940 sets remained through the war. By mid-April 1941 all German destroyers had either this set or its immediate predecessor, FuMO 21.

FuMO 25

Mast antenna, with a 6 x 2m or 4 x 2m antenna, otherwise equivalent to FuMO 24. Many were upgraded to FuMO 33 in 1944.

FuMO 26

Radar for fire control directors, using a new horizontally-polarized 6.6 x 3.2m antenna. It was credited with a range of 20-25km. By 1945 the set aboard Prinz Eugen had been upgraded to a peak power of 60kW (4-microsecond pulses) and had a range accuracy of 55 yds and a bearing accuracy of 0.25° - the latter betraying its fire control origins. Some were upgraded to FuMO 34 (125kW) in 1944, range increasing to 40-50 km.


Type of radar sets used on vessels, see KBismarck.com - Bismarck Technical Data and Battleship Comparison
 
Glider said:
The Bimark lost the front two turrets to one hit from the Rodney, and C turret was lost (not penetrated but knocked out) by a 14in shell.
Click to expand...

Urban legends repeated over and over on various discussion boards...


There was no particular design flaw I know of, the stern was a vulnerable spot on any ship. Look at what happened to Prince of Wales from a similiar hit, it literally shred itself apart. Bismarck`s stern certainly did not collapse on the rudder - there are video footage of it, and it shows the power of the explosion meant that some of the rudder and the screws jammed together from this fluke hit. Its open to question to what extent would that matter, if Bismarck wouldn`t have been struck in the afternoon and was facing two British BBs in the next morning, leaving no time or possibility to conduct repairs, or even just blow off the screw.
 
LoL thanks for the corrections Freebird, as you might have noticed Battleships aint my main interest

Still amazing gunnery displayed by Bismarck, esp. considering it was facing two battleships. That the Bismarck was sunk in the final battle is no surprise, no battleship would've stood any chance in its position, its course was predictable and it was unable to lay all guns on target.
 
Kurfürst said:
Re Bismarks A and B turrets being knocked out early in the battle by Rodney Urban legends repeated over and over on various discussion boards...
Click to expand...
At 0857 the Bismarck sustained her first hit. Five minutes later a 16-inch shell from the Rodney apparently put the German battleship's A and B turrets out of action Source German Battleship Bismarck, sinking of
At 8:59am one of the shells from HMS Rodney's 16 inch guns exploded near Anton and Bruno, knocking them both out of action. Sourcehttp://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4433/history/bismarck.htm
At 0908, the forward rangefinder and turrets "Anton" and "Bruno" were put out of action. Source KBismarck.com - Operation Rheinbung This doesn't state the Rodney and the timing is a little out, but its close.



We believe that part of the stern collapsed onto the rudders, as happened with the Prinz Eugen and armored cruiser Lützow, or was damaged in such a way that it was impossible to steer the ship by either manual or mechanical means. It would have been necessary to cut away structure which was covered by surging water. In any event, the repair of such damage was beyond the capability and material provided aboard the Bismarck, even if weather and battle conditions had been more favorable. The stern structure was massively damaged and eventually failed.

There is remarkable similarity between the Bismarck damage and a similar torpedo hit on the stern of Prinz Eugen on 23 February 1942. Dr. Erwin Strohbusch, who directed the repairs of this heavy cruiser in Norway, wrote to us that this incident, and an earlier one on the armored cruiser Lützow, whose stern also collapsed from a torpedo hit, indicated a structural flaw in the stern design of German armored ships, heavy cruisers, battleships, and battlecruisers. Improvements were made to the stern structures of Admiral Hipper, Lützow, Tirpitz, Admiral Scheer and Scharnhorst during 1942-1943
Source Bismarck's Final Battle - Part 2

Kurfurst I have supported my statements with the examples and the Sources. Can I ask you to support your assertions that its Urban Legend?
 

The Rodney never got her refit mate and Go and look at the Books regarding the Bismarck, Robert D Ballard's book had it in it and why dint the other British Battleships have these problems. Look it up.

The rudders jammed into the screw of the the ship and opened a hole in the rudder control room in the stern and thus they could not do anything for the rudders.

If you look at the last dive to the Bismarck you will see that the torpedo's never actually penetrated the ship, the armor wall just behind the outer skin of the ship was not damaged at all, only the external skin.

Oh if you look at the wreck you can see that A and B turrets were knocked out by a hit from a 16 inch gun.
 
It is pretty clear from evidence of her final battle, that Bismarck lost it´s A + B turrets, one of them for the duration of the battle, the other temporarely, to one or more 16" hits from a salvo which straddled the foreship of Bismarck at about 8:58 very much like Glider said. The turrets of Bismarck, to stress one negative aspect of her protection, are not particularely well protected. The 14.2" faceplate is just average and the 7" slope is outright weak. The conclusion is that the turrets may be knocket out at about any distance by a projectile hitting either the weak -for it´s distance- faceplate, slope or roof, respectively.

I am not sure if the damage on her stern rudder as it can be seen on the wreckage today is battle related. According to Müllenheim Rechenberg, the propulsion plant was working well beyond expectations after beeing torpedoed. From flank ahaed to flank reverse on all shafts in different combinations. An attempt to regain controll with means of applying different loads to the shafts. The picture of the wreckage, however, shows that the rudder jammed the centre shaft and this is in direct conflict with Müllenheim Rechenbergs account. It is more plausible that the rudder jammed the shaft during impact on the seabed in the state as it can be seen today.
The stern appears to have been collapsed somewhen between the sinking and the impact on the seabed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

What is a Quonset Hut?
Replies
14
Views
716
HP52
H
W
What effect would a cross channel tunnel have on WW2?
Replies
17
Views
794
Airframes
O
British Balloon Bombs in the Balkans, Summer 1943?
Replies
2
Views
302
Old MacDonald
O
WWII remnants in Tunisia and Algeria
Replies
0
Views
512
Ghosts of War
A
Interwar examples where a heavy presence might have made a difference?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register