Glider
Captain
Henk
I would like to read this report, is it possible to give me a link or name of a book whatever. It would be appreciated as third party views on this type of thing are invaluble.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hey no problem, we all make typos errors sometimes.LoL thanks for the corrections Freebird, as you might have noticed Battleships aint my main interest
The greatest flaw in the Bismarck was having Hitler as the C in C in name and in fact. He knew nothing about naval warfare and wasn't emotionally suited to be C in C.
renrich said:To use a CV as an escort for a BB would be getting it all backwards. During WW2, the BB was no longer "the" capital ship. It was the escort and support for the CV.
Henk
I would like to read this report, is it possible to give me a link or name of a book whatever. It would be appreciated as third party views on this type of thing are invaluble.
It is very high indeed for a major calibre gun. But this figure shouldn´t be overstressed. Typically, average rates of fire were much lower. The peak rate of firing was to be established once repeated straddles have been achieved. It is furthely limited by the range in question (time to elevate the barrels) and thus barely ever achieved. There is photographic evidence from the Schmalenbach movie that Bismarck achieved a cyclic rate of fire of 8 to 9 sec. between main gun half salvos (= peak rate of fire 16 to 18 sec.) for the latter part of a single but decisive minute against Hood, the average rate of fire was at about 1 salvo pm for the whole engagement. Crew performance was decisisve.
By 1941 both ships have top edge firecontroll as a system. The rate of fire would help Bismarck, as both the initial rate of fire would be slightly higher (shorter time of flight figures allows shorter salvo intervals in the rangefinding period) as would be the peak rate during effective "full" shooting.
With regards to Grouping, I believe that NC is at an advantage. The US 16"/45 firing a 2700lbs projectile at low velocity is a very good combination and NC went through her gunnery trials, unlike Bismarck, which missed her gunnery trials safe two operational training shootings. Bismarck´s gunnery crew couldn´t be sure of her low salvo dispersion (this actually was testified at Tirpitz gunnery trials later) altough they appeared to have a reasonable idea of it.
NC´s secondary guns are not much of a thread to Bismarck. At first they do lack the range to be of much consequence (17 Kyards), and second, they do lack the punch against Bismarck´s protective scheme. Her non vital ship ends, the zitadell protected hull, the armoured weather deck, the exposed vitals and even her secondary turrets are close to immune vs. 5"/38 for all except point blanc ranges. NC is quite in an opposite condition, her RF´s, 2nd guns and upper zitadell hull do only have splinter protection against 6" rounds and their comm tubes are unprotected. Her ship ends are soft and only her armoured weatherdeck allows a degree of protection at ranges below 19.000 yards. The 5.9"/55 has a range of 25 Kyards, the tertiary 4.1"/65 has a range of 19 Kyards).
Penetration and armour would require some extra thoughts but basically, both ships do reflect their navies thread scenarios well and are optimized for different operational conditions.
It is very high indeed for a major calibre gun. But this figure shouldn´t be overstressed. Typically, average rates of fire were much lower. The peak rate of firing was to be established once repeated straddles have been achieved. It is furthely limited by the range in question (time to elevate the barrels) and thus barely ever achieved. There is photographic evidence from the Schmalenbach movie that Bismarck achieved a cyclic rate of fire of 8 to 9 sec. between main gun half salvos (= peak rate of fire 16 to 18 sec.) for the latter part of a single but decisive minute against Hood, the average rate of fire was at about 1 salvo pm for the whole engagement. Crew performance was decisisve.
By 1941 both ships have top edge firecontroll as a system. The rate of fire would help Bismarck, as both the initial rate of fire would be slightly higher (shorter time of flight figures allows shorter salvo intervals in the rangefinding period) as would be the peak rate during effective "full" shooting.
With regards to Grouping, I believe that NC is at an advantage. The US 16"/45 firing a 2700lbs projectile at low velocity is a very good combination and NC went through her gunnery trials, unlike Bismarck, which missed her gunnery trials safe two operational training shootings. Bismarck´s gunnery crew couldn´t be sure of her low salvo dispersion (this actually was testified at Tirpitz gunnery trials later) altough they appeared to have a reasonable idea of it.
NC´s secondary guns are not much of a thread to Bismarck. At first they do lack the range to be of much consequence (17 Kyards), and second, they do lack the punch against Bismarck´s protective scheme. Her non vital ship ends, the zitadell protected hull, the armoured weather deck, the exposed vitals and even her secondary turrets are close to immune vs. 5"/38 for all except point blanc ranges. NC is quite in an opposite condition, her RF´s, 2nd guns and upper zitadell hull do only have splinter protection against 6" rounds and their comm tubes are unprotected. Her ship ends are soft and only her armoured weatherdeck allows a degree of protection at ranges below 19.000 yards. The 5.9"/55 has a range of 25 Kyards, the tertiary 4.1"/65 has a range of 19 Kyards).
Penetration and armour would require some extra thoughts but basically, both ships do reflect their navies thread scenarios well and are optimized for different operational conditions.
The Scharnhorst was actually somewhat typical of German design during WW1. High proportion of displacement devoted to armor versus gun power and engines. .
One, because of the tendency of the RN BCs to blow up(including Hood), would conclude that they were extremely vulnerable and practically deathtraps. However, at Jutland, Beatty's flagship Lion was hit 12 times with heavy shells(11 inch and up) and stayed in the fight all day. One shell opened up Q turret(amidships) but the ship probably was saved by a dying Marine flooding that turret's magazine. Tiger was hit 17 times with heavy shells and 4 times with medium or light shells and kept fighting and Princess Royal received hits from 9 heavy shells. The 3 BCs that blew up only were hit 5 times each by heavy shells and Hood may have only been hit by two 15 inch shells. The ship one would want to be on was New Zealand. The Kiwi BC received not a hit all day. Of course her skipper was wearing a Maori skirt which probably explains her luck. My point is that the BCs could take heavy punishment and keep going, just not in certain places.