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

[Freebird]

As you can see the Rodney was repaired after the storm she was in. When a gun jumps it's cradle it jumps the mount it is mounted in the Turret. The problem with the Rodney is that all of her main armament was in the front of the ship and was thus not a great idea. Of all the other British Battleship designs she is for me one of the strangest designs and did not make her a great Battleship.

Yes it is true that when the main guns of the Yamato fired the crew had to be in a certain position not to be thrown up in the air

She was REPAIRED after the serious storm damage, but was in fact in need of a RE-FIT in the USA, was on her way there before being called back to hunt down Bismarck.

The fact that it was an unorthodox design does not make it a bad design, as pointed out previously, there are some significant advantages to offering only a bow profile to the enemy, as almost all impacting shells hit at less than 45 deg, wheras a hull hit from broadside is close to 90 deg, the worst possible angle

 

[Henk]

I understand what you are saying freebird. The other problem I have with the German design is the fact that they did not have enough main armament. The Bismarck only had 8 15 inch guns, but think of if she had 3 15 inch guns in each turret? The other thing that is a waste of space is the aircraft catapult and hangers. Without it they could have used the space for something better.

 

[Freebird]

I understand what you are saying freebird. The other problem I have with the German design is the fact that they did not have enough main armament. The Bismarck only had 8 15 inch guns, but think of if she had 3 15 inch guns in each turret? The other thing that is a waste of space is the aircraft catapult and hangers. Without it they could have used the space for something better.

Yep I agree with you there, since the Germans were not going to stick to the 35,000 ton limit, why not do 45,000 or 50,000 tons, and something that the British can't match. Why not make 16" guns? If the Italians can, no reason why Germany couldn't

 

[renrich]

There is no way one could design a battleship with four triple turrets with 15 or 16 inch guns that had decent armor and decent speed on 50000 tons of displacement. With that many guns one would have to sacrifise almost all armor or engine power or both to get it into 50000 tons. The Montana class (US) were supposed to have four triple 16 inch turrets and only 28 knots and they were projected to be 60500 tons. The Bismarck (full load) was close to 50000 tons.

 

[delcyros]

For all You armchair warship designers I suggest to have a look into Springsharp. With this tool, You can approximate basic layout designs of warships. It´s very useful.

http://www.springsharp.com/

 

[timshatz]

Pretty cool Delc, thanks for posting.

 

[Freebird]

For all You armchair warship designers I suggest to have a look into Springsharp. With this tool, You can approximate basic layout designs of warships. It´s very useful.

SpringSharp

thanks for the link!

There is no way one could design a battleship with four triple turrets with 15 or 16 inch guns that had decent armor and decent speed on 50000 tons of displacement. With that many guns one would have to sacrifise almost all armor or engine power or both to get it into 50000 tons. The Montana class (US) were supposed to have four triple 16 inch turrets and only 28 knots and they were projected to be 60500 tons. The Bismarck (full load) was close to 50000 tons.

True enough, you might be able to get it at 50,000-55,000 with somewhat less armour or guns. (The British would be expecting to face the German 15" guns, while the Montana was designed to withstand the heavy 16" shells) Or if it does end up with the Montana's disp, then so be it. {Lucky asked a question what would your navy look like, he didn't qualify it with "assuming budget constraints imposed by dingbat polititians with their heads in the sand", on the eve of a world war!!!}

 

[Henk]

I would like to get a program that can take my design of the ship, not the specs and correct the errors I made and give me a rough idea of how it should be corrected. My designs are huge, and if they were ever build would be giants, due to so many turrets I have on it, but they did do it with the Dreadnought designs. I did try that program, but it did not have what I wanted.

I use some of the design ideas of some of the battleships, because they work and fits greatly with my ships.

 

[Freebird]

IMO Bismarck is one of the most overrated designs as well, but I dont want to hijack the debate at this point

Well you may find some disagreement on that...

I think the poll is about 48% for Bismarck last time I looked.

 

[Soren]

Well you may find some disagreement on that...

I think the poll is about 48% for Bismarck last time I looked.

And for good reason

 

[parsifal]

Well you may find some disagreement on that...

I think the poll is about 48% for Bismarck last time I looked.[/QUOTE]

I wouldnt disagree that the Bismarck was the most powerful BB in a straight duel in 1941. Within a short space of time, however her design was outclassed, to which her design faults only exacerbated the issue

 

[delcyros]

Within a short space of time, however her design was outclassed, to which her design faults only exacerbated the issue

That´s a hard statement, I cannot agree with, when juding the Bismarck on her most plausible thread context. Would You please explain why? I know that this can be read mutiple times by naval authorities but here Dr. George Elders comment should warn us:
"WE HAVE TO DO DEEPER RESEARCH."

Best regards,
delc

 

[parsifal]

From what Ive read, she had an AA suite that was dubious, her armour distribution was relatively poor, and in comparison to the KGVs, relatively thin. The gunnery and fire control and radar detection systems were beginning to look dated by 1942.

The Germans based the design of the bismarcks largely on the Baden and one other WWI design (name escapes me). However, they had been out of the battleship design game for too long, ideas on armour distribution IMO were dated. The armour scheme appears to try and cover every part of the ship, rather than covering the vitals. Certain key elements of the ships systems were not even covered by the main belt at all (although there were back up systems further down in the ship. Bismarcks performance in her last battle was nothing special IMO. Her guns were silenced in a relatively short space of time.

I have read from some accounts that her standard of underwater protection was not that great either, but have not researched that issue all that much. The British system was far simpler, a lot less flashy, but in the end, better, ton for ton

I know that Bismarck is somewhat of a sacred cow for many, but I am not one of theose people

 

[Freebird]

I wouldnt disagree that the Bismarck was the most powerful BB in a straight duel in 1941. Within a short space of time, however her design was outclassed, to which her design faults only exacerbated the issue

How would you compare the Bismarck, KGV and Nelson? In that exact order?

The reason I put "straight duel", {ie. both sides are intent on closing, neither side is trying to disengage} is that the greatest handicap of the Nelson was the speed, if Bismarck declined to stand and fight the "Nelson"s couldn't force the issue.

 

[delcyros]

From what Ive read, she had an AA suite that was dubious, her armour distribution was relatively poor, and in comparison to the KGVs, relatively thin. The gunnery and fire control and radar detection systems were beginning to look dated by 1942.

Bismarck´s AA suite was indeed dubious, in the way that it had an inhomogenious setup of two mounts with different abilities regarding traversing speed for the 4.1"/65. However, her AA-FC gear was excellent, all guns were what the US jargon called fully remote power controlled and unlike US and british practice in fully triaxially stabilized mounts with FC beeing fully tachimetric, triaxially stabilized, too. That´s by no means weak. For her time, Bismarck had the best AA suite in the world! The FC gear was able to deal with change rates in range, elevation and direction, unlike the british high angle system, which could only deal with planes flying strictly in level.
Regarding the armour distribution I too have a different opinion, the distribution was very good and the waterline protection was the best of all battleships ever build (this is a quote from Nathan Okun).
It has weaknesses but the side protection is not one of them.

The Germans based the design of the bismarcks largely on the Baden and one other WWI design (name escapes me). However, they had been out of the battleship design game for too long, ideas on armour distribution IMO were dated. The armour scheme appears to try and cover every part of the ship, rather than covering the vitals. Certain key elements of the ships systems were not even covered by the main belt at all (although there were back up systems further down in the ship.

There is indeed one area 100% overtaken from the Baden, that´s Bismarck´s kitchen. Other than this, both designs do only have superficial similarity: Both ships have four twin turrets with 38cm guns - from an entirely different gun and hoist structure.
Both designs have a three shafted design - with a completely different machinery and hullform, of course.
Both designs have a slope - but Bismarcks slope (unlike Baden´s) is made from full armour grade material and enforced enough to deflect any belt penetrating projectile.
The armour design is no way dated -it was different but new! No ww1 BB had such an armour layout with an armoured slope designed to deflect belt piercing hits. If You study the design history, You will soon see that the all-or-nothing armour scheme was not unknown to Germany. The pocket battleships were designed with this scheme. But once projectiles became more and more effective (introduction of hard capped - low filled APC in the 30´s) it became necessary to combine side and deck protection system as Hoyer wrote 1942. This was actually established with shell by shell caisson tests on the old PD Hessen (1:1 sections) in 1932 to -34. During these and other trials, they did became familar with decapping effects and yawing effects of projectiles. In response to these knowledge, german and italian APC were much more difficult to decap than US, british or japanese APC´s with grave consequences for all ships with internal belt arrangements (Nelson, Dunkerque, Richelieu, South Dakota, Iowa).
Moving away from a-o-n was nothing related only to german design practice. Study the last UK battleship (HMS VANGUARD) and You will find a comparable situation, moving away from a-o-n was considered a necessarity. It shouldn´t be taken as dated nor should it be judged without contexts of other design parameters (stability, for example).
The statement that certain key elements are not covered by armour has never been substantiated. I would really like to know which key elements are mentioned here, I have studied the plans in detail and all important energy and comm lines are under the MAD with only the heavily armoured comm tubes running above them. You can trace this statement down to Nathan Okuns famous analysis of the Bismarck armour scheme but here again nothing is said about those "key" elements. An urban myth if You ask me.
If You want to name a weakness than deck protection is the way to go. Compared to other latest generation BB´s, Bismarck does have a higher vulnarability to plunging fire from 24.000 yards onwards with the heaviest projectiles. But not many hit´s occurred at these long ranges, which would in turn show that the decision to protect Bismarck at closer ranges was justified with hindsight of ww2 evidences. Another striking weakness is the low degree of protection for the exposed turrets / barbettes, a weakness shared by KGV.

I have read from some accounts that her standard of underwater protection was not that great either, but have not researched that issue all that much. The British system was far simpler, a lot less flashy, but in the end, better, ton for ton

I have read them, too but cannot agree in them. The british system does not prevent venting of the blast into the upper hull (bypassing the whole TDS), which was a major contributor for the rapid sinking of HMS Prince of Wales. While Bismarck´s TDS may have been a bit away from beeing perfect, it remained very good and in combination with the excessive metacentric height prooved to make the ship extremely resistant to underwater damage as prooved by operation Rheinübung and the history of Tirpitz and the twins, which had a comparable but inferior system.
Bottomline is that the KGV class did not reacted superior against underwaterdamage in direct comparison.

I myselfe might appear to be fond of Bismarck, but as You can read in the poll, I have voted for Littorio instead.

best regards,
delc

 

[Glider]

There can be little doubt that the Bismarks Fire Control was the best of its time but the weapons themselves were below average. Her 37mm were only semi automatic with each shell manually loaded resulting in a very slow rate of fire. The 4.1in were very sophisticated but training rates were average and they tended to be unreliable.

 

[parsifal]

Bismarck´s AA suite was indeed dubious, in the way that it had an inhomogenious setup of two mounts with different abilities regarding traversing speed for the 4.1"/65. However, her AA-FC gear was excellent, all guns were what the US jargon called fully remote power controlled and unlike US and british practice in fully triaxially stabilized mounts with FC beeing fully tachimetric, triaxially stabilized, too. That´s by no means weak. For her time, Bismarck had the best AA suite in the world! The FC gear was able to deal with change rates in range, elevation and direction, unlike the british high angle system, which could only deal with planes flying strictly in level.

I dont dispute that the theoretical arrangements for AA were impressive. But the proof of the pudding is in the results. I think the best single days shooting goes to the South Dakota, at Santa Cruz, where she was credited with bringing down something like 12 A/C. Then we have the British efforts in the Med, which are not to be scoffed at. Compare that with Bismarcks and Tirpitz's efforts against various strikes made against them. For a number of reasons, the Germans efforts can only be rated as poor. Sometimes, opting for the most sophisticated does not result in the best results. The triaxial mountings for the 4.1 I have read caused all manner of problems, as did the advanced predictors that the Germans were using, particulalry against slow moving targets like the Swordfish



Regarding the armour distribution I too have a different opinion, the distribution was very good and the waterline protection was the best of all battleships ever build (this is a quote from Nathan Okun).
It has weaknesses but the side protection is not one of them.

We'll have to agree to disagree I think. The problem as I see it is that the Bismarck was trying for too much of the hull to be protected. sounds strange I know, but the Germans were distributing their armour over somehting like 70% of the hull structure, whereas the KGVs (just for comparison...I am no great fan of the KGV) area of the just 59%. If the surface area of the two ships is roughly equal (which I have NOT checked), then the 12000 tons of armour in the KGV, spread over just 59% of the hull, is going to be thicker, and more effective, than the 17000 tons spread over the 70% of the Bismarcks Hull


Both ships have four twin turrets with 38cm guns - from an entirely different gun and hoist structure.

Yes, and according to Campbell, the safety standards in the bismarcks shell handling areas were wanting when compared to British standards, the british having learned the hard way in WWI


Both designs have a three shafted design - with a completely different machinery and hullform, of course.

The three shaft design was a direct contributing factor in the loss of the Bismarck. If she had adopted a four shaft system, such as was common in other designs, she may have been able to achieve some level of steerage by the engines. The three prop configuration along with the twin rudders located so close together were major factors contributing to her loss


Both designs have a slope - but Bismarcks slope (unlike Baden´s) is made from full armour grade material and enforced enough to deflect any belt penetrating projectile.

I agree

The armour design is no way dated -it was different but new! No ww1 BB had such an armour layout with an armoured slope designed to deflect belt piercing hits. If You study the design history, You will soon see that the all-or-nothing armour scheme was not unknown to Germany. The pocket battleships were designed with this scheme. But once projectiles became more and more effective (introduction of hard capped - low filled APC in the 30´s) it became necessary to combine side and deck protection system as Hoyer wrote 1942. This was actually established with shell by shell caisson tests on the old PD Hessen (1:1 sections) in 1932 to -34. During these and other trials, they did became familar with decapping effects and yawing effects of projectiles. In response to these knowledge, german and italian APC were much more difficult to decap than US, british or japanese APC´s with grave consequences for all ships with internal belt arrangements (Nelson, Dunkerque, Richelieu, South Dakota, Iowa).


I cannot see how having thinner armour, unable to prevent shell penetrations of likley adversaries, is an advance over having restricted armour distribution, which at least has a chance of preventing penetrations over a wider range. The concentrated armour schemes might protec all of the ship, but they were better at protecting the vitals

Moving away from a-o-n was nothing related only to german design practice. Study the last UK battleship (HMS VANGUARD) and You will find a comparable situation, moving away from a-o-n was considered a necessarity. It shouldn´t be taken as dated nor should it be judged without contexts of other design parameters (stability, for example).

Vanguard was designed with a vastly different environment in mind, to that which existed at the time of Bismarcks inception. Airpower, and plunging fire caused by the radar revolution were now of far greater importance than was considered at the time of Bismarcks design. perhaps the Bismarcks designers were ahead of their time, i dont know, but I can find no evidence to support that. far from looking forwards, my opinion is that the Bismarcks design was looking backwards


The statement that certain key elements are not covered by armour has never been substantiated. I would really like to know which key elements are mentioned here, I have studied the plans in detail and all important energy and comm lines are under the MAD with only the heavily armoured comm tubes running above them. You can trace this statement down to Nathan Okuns famous analysis of the Bismarck armour scheme but here again nothing is said about those "key" elements. An urban myth if You ask me.

I agree, but there are nevertheless quite credible accounts that state that this was a problem

If You want to name a weakness than deck protection is the way to go. Compared to other latest generation BB´s, Bismarck does have a higher vulnarability to plunging fire from 24.000 yards onwards with the heaviest projectiles. But not many hit´s occurred at these long ranges, which would in turn show that the decision to protect Bismarck at closer ranges was justified with hindsight of ww2 evidences. Another striking weakness is the low degree of protection for the exposed turrets / barbettes, a weakness shared by KGV.

Basically agree

I have read them, too but cannot agree in them. The british system does not prevent venting of the blast into the upper hull (bypassing the whole TDS), which was a major contributor for the rapid sinking of HMS Prince of Wales. While Bismarck´s TDS may have been a bit away from beeing perfect, it remained very good and in combination with the excessive metacentric height prooved to make the ship extremely resistant to underwater damage as prooved by operation Rheinübung and the history of Tirpitz and the twins, which had a comparable but inferior system.
Bottomline is that the KGV class did not reacted superior against underwaterdamage in direct comparison.

I will look further into this and get back to you. I have some good sources, but will take a few days to research

I myselfe might appear to be fond of Bismarck, but as You can read in the poll, I have voted for Littorio instead.

I was actually thinking the Richelieu. I also like the Soyuz designas well, although it was incomplete. I see this discussion, incidentally as constructive incidentally. Hope you feel the same

 

[parsifal]

Bismarck´s AA suite was indeed dubious, in the way that it had an inhomogenious setup of two mounts with different abilities regarding traversing speed for the 4.1"/65. However, her AA-FC gear was excellent, all guns were what the US jargon called fully remote power controlled and unlike US and british practice in fully triaxially stabilized mounts with FC beeing fully tachimetric, triaxially stabilized, too. That´s by no means weak. For her time, Bismarck had the best AA suite in the world! The FC gear was able to deal with change rates in range, elevation and direction, unlike the british high angle system, which could only deal with planes flying strictly in level.

I dont dispute that the theoretical arrangements for AA were impressive. But the proof of the pudding is in the results. I think the best single days shooting goes to the South Dakota, at Santa Cruz, where she was credited with bringing down something like 12 A/C. Then we have the British efforts in the Med, which are not to be scoffed at. Compare that with Bismarcks and Tirpitz's efforts against various strikes made against them. For a number of reasons, the Germans efforts can only be rated as poor. Sometimes, opting for the most sophisticated does not result in the best results. The triaxial mountings for the 4.1 I have read caused all manner of problems, as did the advanced predictors that the Germans were using, particulalry against slow moving targets like the Swordfish



Regarding the armour distribution I too have a different opinion, the distribution was very good and the waterline protection was the best of all battleships ever build (this is a quote from Nathan Okun).
It has weaknesses but the side protection is not one of them.

We'll have to agree to disagree I think. The problem as I see it is that the Bismarck was trying for too much of the hull to be protected. sounds strange I know, but the Germans were distributing their armour over somehting like 70% of the hull structure, whereas the KGVs (just for comparison...I am no great fan of the KGV) area of the just 59%. If the surface area of the two ships is roughly equal (which I have NOT checked), then the 12000 tons of armour in the KGV, spread over just 59% of the hull, is going to be thicker, and more effective, than the 17000 tons spread over the 70% of the Bismarcks Hull


Both ships have four twin turrets with 38cm guns - from an entirely different gun and hoist structure.

Yes, and according to Campbell, the safety standards in the bismarcks shell handling areas were wanting when compared to British standards, the british having learned the hard way in WWI


Both designs have a three shafted design - with a completely different machinery and hullform, of course.

The three shaft design was a direct contributing factor in the loss of the Bismarck. If she had adopted a four shaft system, such as was common in other designs, she may have been able to achieve some level of steerage by the engines. The three prop configuration along with the twin rudders located so close together were major factors contributing to her loss


Both designs have a slope - but Bismarcks slope (unlike Baden´s) is made from full armour grade material and enforced enough to deflect any belt penetrating projectile.

I agree

The armour design is no way dated -it was different but new! No ww1 BB had such an armour layout with an armoured slope designed to deflect belt piercing hits. If You study the design history, You will soon see that the all-or-nothing armour scheme was not unknown to Germany. The pocket battleships were designed with this scheme. But once projectiles became more and more effective (introduction of hard capped - low filled APC in the 30´s) it became necessary to combine side and deck protection system as Hoyer wrote 1942. This was actually established with shell by shell caisson tests on the old PD Hessen (1:1 sections) in 1932 to -34. During these and other trials, they did became familar with decapping effects and yawing effects of projectiles. In response to these knowledge, german and italian APC were much more difficult to decap than US, british or japanese APC´s with grave consequences for all ships with internal belt arrangements (Nelson, Dunkerque, Richelieu, South Dakota, Iowa).


I cannot see how having thinner armour, unable to prevent shell penetrations of likley adversaries, is an advance over having restricted armour distribution, which at least has a chance of preventing penetrations over a wider range. The concentrated armour schemes might not protect all of the ship, but they were better at protecting the vitals

Moving away from a-o-n was nothing related only to german design practice. Study the last UK battleship (HMS VANGUARD) and You will find a comparable situation, moving away from a-o-n was considered a necessarity. It shouldn´t be taken as dated nor should it be judged without contexts of other design parameters (stability, for example).

Vanguard was designed with a vastly different environment in mind, to that which existed at the time of Bismarcks inception. Airpower, and plunging fire caused by the radar revolution were now of far greater importance than was considered at the time of Bismarcks design. perhaps the Bismarcks designers were ahead of their time, i dont know, but I can find no evidence to support that. far from looking forwards, my opinion is that the Bismarcks design was looking backwards


The statement that certain key elements are not covered by armour has never been substantiated. I would really like to know which key elements are mentioned here, I have studied the plans in detail and all important energy and comm lines are under the MAD with only the heavily armoured comm tubes running above them. You can trace this statement down to Nathan Okuns famous analysis of the Bismarck armour scheme but here again nothing is said about those "key" elements. An urban myth if You ask me.

I agree, but there are nevertheless quite credible accounts that state that this was a problem

If You want to name a weakness than deck protection is the way to go. Compared to other latest generation BB´s, Bismarck does have a higher vulnarability to plunging fire from 24.000 yards onwards with the heaviest projectiles. But not many hit´s occurred at these long ranges, which would in turn show that the decision to protect Bismarck at closer ranges was justified with hindsight of ww2 evidences. Another striking weakness is the low degree of protection for the exposed turrets / barbettes, a weakness shared by KGV.

Basically agree

I have read them, too but cannot agree in them. The british system does not prevent venting of the blast into the upper hull (bypassing the whole TDS), which was a major contributor for the rapid sinking of HMS Prince of Wales. While Bismarck´s TDS may have been a bit away from beeing perfect, it remained very good and in combination with the excessive metacentric height prooved to make the ship extremely resistant to underwater damage as prooved by operation Rheinübung and the history of Tirpitz and the twins, which had a comparable but inferior system.
Bottomline is that the KGV class did not reacted superior against underwaterdamage in direct comparison.

I will look further into this and get back to you. I have some good sources, but will take a few days to research

I myselfe might appear to be fond of Bismarck, but as You can read in the poll, I have voted for Littorio instead.

I was actually thinking the Richelieu. I also like the Soyuz designas well, although it was incomplete. I see this discussion, incidentally as constructive incidentally. Hope you feel the same

 

[delcyros]

I do always enjoi a discussion with such a well informed person, Parsifal.

But the proof of the pudding is in the results. I think the best single days shooting goes to the South Dakota, at Santa Cruz, where she was credited with bringing down something like 12 A/C. Then we have the British efforts in the Med, which are not to be scoffed at. Compare that with Bismarcks and Tirpitz's efforts against various strikes made against them. For a number of reasons, the Germans efforts can only be rated as poor.

I have no idea how well SD´s claims do match japanese losses but I remember strong doubts on this number from both sides. However, the condition is important, my friend! South Dakota was stationed behind a carrier at a calm day and all incoming A/C had an easily predictable course towards the carrier. In this position, unmolested by enemy airstrikes, and with the help of the full AA ability of the whole task force, it is not that surprising that such excellent results come to day. This is however, fundamentally different from Bismarck´s or Tirpitz condition. I have posted AA ammo expendeture figures for Tirpitz in 1942 when under attack by Victorious enroute and those of the US statistical report for august 1945 and the phillipines campaign 1944. From a purely statistical comparison, the numbers of AA rounds expended for achieveing a kill are identic for Tirpitz on the one side and the average expendeture figure for US task forces (including themuch improved VT-fuzed rounds!). This is hardly an evidence for very poor performance.
Bismarck´s performance was substantially lower than Tirpitz, the main reason beeing that the automatic fuze setting of the 4.1"AA rounds had not a low enough min. setting. This was recitified in mid 1941 for all KM ships. The predictor had nothing to do with the problem, the AA curtain was always developing at a wrong position relative to the slower than estimated swordfishs. Triaxially stabilized mountings were causing mechanical problems owing to fatigue and hydraulic leakages. The cases are well documented by the various AVKS reports on the ships and I have the impression that this was more a problem of maintenenace than service.

The problem as I see it is that the Bismarck was trying for too much of the hull to be protected. sounds strange I know, but the Germans were distributing their armour over somehting like 70% of the hull structure, whereas the KGVs (just for comparison...I am no great fan of the KGV) area of the just 59%. If the surface area of the two ships is roughly equal (which I have NOT checked), then the 12000 tons of armour in the KGV, spread over just 59% of the hull, is going to be thicker, and more effective, than the 17000 tons spread over the 70% of the Bismarcks Hull

The basic idea behind this explenation is sound and there is every evidence that KGV´s main belt is thicker than Bismarck´s and beyond this, while inferior to italian armour was also made from slightly better armour grade quality than german and significantly better quality than US armour belts. However, the belt was not thick enough to stop major calibre impacts by the then in use german and italian 15" APC projectiles from close to medium distances (0 to 20.000 yards and less if You give any allowance for target angles). And once pierced, there was nothing substantial between vitals and the projectile...

Yes, and according to Campbell, the safety standards in the bismarcks shell handling areas were wanting when compared to British standards, the british having learned the hard way in WWI

The difference is relative to functioning principles as well. While the british gun was a breech loader, all german naval guns except for the 28cmL35/L40 of the vintage Brandenburg class Pre-Dreadnoughts were working according to the quick fire principle. However, the vast use of safety interlocks were giving the British all sorts of problems, particularely in the quad turrets of the KGV-class, which can be studied in detail as those are well reported. furtherly, these safety measures were more important for the RN as they were still relying on MD cordite derivates in silk bags while the german navy preferred tubular grain solventless powder in brass cases. The history of fatal magazine explosions is a very one sided one, beeing much in disfavour of the Royal Navy...

The three shaft design was a direct contributing factor in the loss of the Bismarck. If she had adopted a four shaft system, such as was common in other designs, she may have been able to achieve some level of steerage by the engines. The three prop configuration along with the twin rudders located so close together were major factors contributing to her loss

I disagree in this. The steering gear was unaccessable by environmental conditions of the rising sea, night skirmishes with DD´s and the close shadowing (preventing stopping). I have not found any instance where a rudder blocked 20 deg. port was successfully countersteered by a fourshafted BB. There are instances for steering gear blocks (Valiant 1941, Warspite at Jutland, Krishima at Guadacanal) but in no case could that be countered with applying different levels of power to the shafts. Only when the steering gear became under controll AND the rudder neutral (!) this was a viable option.

I cannot see how having thinner armour, unable to prevent shell penetrations of likley adversaries, is an advance over having restricted armour distribution, which at least has a chance of preventing penetrations over a wider range. The concentrated armour schemes might not protect all of the ship, but they were better at protecting the vitals

It might, but not the way it was done in any BB. Basically, define "vitals". You will need to differ between embedded and exposed vitals. As long as we are talking about embedded vitals (magazines, machinery, ship controll) this statement is wrong. Once the belt got pierced, the projectile is still far away from damaging the vitals. It still needs to defeat the enforced slope (which it cannot do except for lucky instances, such as hits on the plate joint) and afterwards needs to traverse a liquid filled compartement and finally needs to defeat the strengthend torpedo bulkhead to reach the vitals. Not even Yamato´s 18.1" gun -which by far was the best belt penetrator of all naval guns- is able to do that on what was described as tyical fighting distances.
Usually the projectile will deflect upwards by the slope and (...in case it remains in a condition fit to...) burst in the sacrificial upper hull, with no serious damage and more importantly no associated flooding. Contemporary US and french design practice would see the projectile either penetrating the inclined belt or deflecting downwards INTO THE SHIPS TDS, causing flooding. The armour layout of Bismarck provides immunity for a wider range of distances, starting at point blanc and extending to the range where the projectile can defeat the deck armour. That is from say 6.000 yards to 26.000 yards against KGV´s guns, exactly the range at which most battles were fought in ww2 ( covering a much larger area, btw). KGV´s armour layout extends her IZ from about 20.000 yards to 34.000 yards against Bismarck´s guns (embedded vitals, only), covering much less of the ship. In the end this appears to be much protection on ultra long ranges not used in ww2... Would You call this an advantage?
I do not think that Bismarck´s designers were looking forward, but they were using investigations of Jutland, not aviable to UK/US forces before the advent of the US technical mission to europe in 1945. Much of the conclusions drawn by ww2 experience for Vanguard were already known by the K-Amt, such as extending the vitals over larger area or giving the ship adeaquately protected ship ends. It can be argued on the other hand that plunging fire was not adeaquately adressed in Bismarck´s design and I agree that this was the case.

best regards,
delc

 

[parsifal]

We will have to agree to disagree on this issue I am afraid. there are many points of common ground, but my basic opinion on the poor design of Bismarck remains unchanged. I respect your differing opinion, but dont agree with it at all Im afraid. And my credentials are reasonably good to be able to say that. It is up to our audience to decide for themselves I guess