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