Discussion in 'What If - Other' started by dasreich, Aug 16, 2002.
"Sigh....." I need a beer....
And some asprin....
No where close to the entire British fleet was sent after Bismark and the British considered 2 to one adequate to insure her demise. Unfortunatly the first two were an old BC and an BB that was not yet worked up.
Can you document the accuracy part? As for penetration at accoording to navweapons the Yamato has an advantage at all ranges and has a velocity atvantage over 15,000 meters.
Maybe 6 times in 100. Have you even looked at the respective immune zones?
Way ahead, I'm on #2
Bismarck was lucky and unlucky in her only major engagement.
That says more than any statistics could.
It won & lost when it shouldn't have done either.
The Japanese should've used Yamato & other BB's at Guadalcanal, blown the crud out of Henderson Field, and denied all allied surface ships until the place was theirs again. Instead of wherever she/they was/were.
Bismarck & perhaps Tirpitz & the BC's should've prevented the Northern convoys from getting anything through.
Alone (practically alone) ... they died. Ego kills.
This is complete nonsense. The Bismarck was armed with the 38cm SKC 34 gun. The design details and characteristics are well known. In fact, several are still in existance such as the ones mounted in Battery Vara in Norway or Battery Todt at Cape Griz Nez in France.
The 38cm SKC 34 gun had a overall caliber of 48.4. The gun including breech weighed 244,713 pounds. Overall length was 64.442 feet.
It used a loose built up liner with 90 rifling grooves with a twist of 1/36 at the breech and 1/30 at the muzzle. Overall length of rifling was 724.596" and a powder charge of either 452.4 or 575.4 lbs was used.
The AP shell weighed 1,763.70 lbs and was fired at a muzzle velocity of 2,690 fps. Maximum range as mounted in the DRH LC/34 twin turret as aboard Bismarck was 39,589 yards theoretically.
The US 16"/45 Mk 5 (as on the Maryland class), 16"/45 Mk 6 and, 16"/50 Mk 7 all out perform the German gun at any range using either the lighter AP Mk 5 2,240 lb shell or more substancially using the later 2,700 lb Mk 8 round. The French 380mm Mle 1935 mounted on the Richelieu class equal the German gun in performance while the Italian 381mm Model 1934 gun of the Vittorio Veneto class slightly out performs it.
If anything, the SKC 34 had good, if unspectacular, performance on par with other nation's 15" naval guns. It was easily outperformed by 16" and even the rather poor Japanese 18.1" guns across the board.
As for her sinking in one piece: Only the fact that all the main magazines were flooded long before she sank and that there were no direct penetrations into a magazine saved her that fate. Scharnhorst, like Yamato had her forward magazines detonate in her final battle (North Cape). So, claiming any superior performance based on this claim (that the magazines did not explode) is just supercilious in nature.
Also posted on the Atlantic board for completeness.
They couldn't or at least didn't think they could. The Yamato wasn't fast enough to make the run under cover of darkness so would have possibly been subject to air attack at either end. There is also the problem of how much fuel would have been consumed in a high speed run like this.
Sir, I understand you may feel that you are smarter than every one else because you post that you are a veteran but I to am a veteran from the Vietnam war; so please try not to be rude as it is very unbecoming of a U.S. veteran. Below are excerpts from sources on the "Bismarck". So you are going to tell me your sources are better?From post treaty battleships By Chuck Hawks "She and her sistership, Bismarck, proved very difficult to sink. They may, in fact, have been pound for pound the hardest of all battleships to actually sink." Also from Bismarck-class.dk "380 mm/L48,5 grooves, cal. 52 overall (14,96") caliber SK C/34
The calibre of the German 380 mm guns (i.e. diameter of bore multiplied by number of calibre to give length of barrel) has traditionally been stated at 47. This figure is no longer quoted in qualified sources and it has been impossible to trace its origins. Furthermore, cal. 47 seems to be inconsistent with the considerable weight of the piece (more than 110 tons) compared with the weight of other modern battleship guns."
- Schlachtschiff Bismarck - Eine Technikgeschichtliche Dokumentation by Siegfried Breyer and Gerhard Koop, page 42
- Battleships - Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II by William H. Garzke, Jr. and Robert O. Dulin, Jr., page 502
- Naval Weapons of World War II by John Campbell, page 229)
- Fortress Europe - The Atlantic Wall Guns by Karl-Heinz Schmeelke and Michael Schmeelke
No you are the best laugh I have had in weeks; it is very funny how people hide behind emails when in fact they would not have the guts to say rude things in person. The Bismarck is in fact upright and the hull is one solid piece unlike the Hood which was blown apart.
From KBismarck.com per Jose Rico. " A special characteristic of these guns was their high muzzle velocity and low shell trajectories with a short flight time, which permitted to obtain a very accurate and rapid fire. This was fully demonstrated in the morning of 24 May 1941 during the naval engagement with the British battlecruiser Hood. "
So what ?????
She's still at the bottom of the ocean :lol:
Just think about what you wrote.
The accuracy was missing in its last battle when it failed to score a single hit on any of the British warships.
I assume that this is directed at me.
No, I don't "feel that [I am] smarter than every one else because [of a] post that [I am] a veteran but I to am a veteran from the Vietnam war;" That makes absolutely no difference here. The information I posted is accurate. I have researched naval weapons and battleship engagements in WW 2 extensively.
In fact, one of the sources you list I would cite myself: Battleships - Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II by William H. Garzke, Jr. and Robert O. Dulin, Jr., page 502.
Dulin and Garzke's figures calculated using the US Navy Immunity Zone Slide Rule formula show exactly what I cited. I could list a half dozen or more other sources to no particular value as well.
As for the difficulty in sinking Bismarck she proved no moreso than other modern battleships. It took the British at the final action about 20 minutes to completely silence Bismarck. Once the main fire control director station was hit, Bismarck was finished; just like every other battleship that suffered such a hit.
Certainly, Yamashiro proved equally resiliant to a much worse pounding at Saguro Strait in 1944.
As for rate of fire, this is predicated in Bismarck, just like any other battleship, by the equipment used for loading the guns. In Bismarck's case, the theoretical rate of fire is somewhere between 2 and 2.33 rounds per minute depending on elevation (loading is at a fixed angle or 2.5 degrees thus the variation).
I also cannot see any outstanding performance by Bismarck in the Denmark Straights battle. The fuzing of her shells proved highly defective with the majority failing to detonate. While Bismarck managed to score about a dozen hits total on the two British ships, it was only luck of the draw that sank Hood. Without the lucky magazine hit the fight might have gone differently.
The PoW even while suffering severe problems with the loading systems in the quadruple turrets managed to damage Bismarck fairly badly. The hit forward in particular was very destructive.
To Redcoat and to Dahlhorse
If memory serves the KM Bismarck was indeed reduced to sinking condition, but she was in fact scuttled by her capatin KzS Ernst Lindemann and she is in two pieces her stern about 20 metres lies not far from the intact hull.
After her discovery there have been extensive scans on her and her hull is intact, apart from her superstructure no penetration of her hull by RN shell were detected.
Now onto the Yamato i have a report on her and the link is
No, her weakened stern fell off when she sank
She suffered 3 hits from the POW during the Denmark Straights battle, two of which caused flooding, leaving her with a list of a few degrees. So the claim that her hull wasn't penetrated is incorrect, even discounting her last battle.
ps; she's lying on her hull in several feet of mud, so any inspection of hull damage would be limited
That's simply not true. There were a number of penetrations including several through her belt..
Well high velocity and low projectile weight are often more of a detriment to accuracy than a plus. The rate of at Denmark straits is somewhat problematic from analysis I've seen.
1.The Bismarck had a list, could not steer, was up against 2 battle cruisers 2 battle ships and several destroyers in the "final battle"; even so several witnesses on board the rodney said the Bismarcks salvoes were within yards of the rodney before Bismarck had his gun director knocked out by Norfolk. I would say the rodney was extremely lucky it did not end up as the hood did. Also it is like the british; when they have numerical superiority they are big and tough, but like in the American Revolution where we had to kick their a** out of our country they ran like sissies.
It's my understanding that the Bismarck did indeed accomplish a few straddles of Rodney early in her final battle with the two British battleships, but that does not equate to her performance at Denmark Straits. Bismarck's guns were optimized for accuracy at shorter ranges where lighter shells and flatter trajectories tend to be advantageous. However, the Yamato's guns were designed to engage at longer ranges where lighter shells are, as LWD pointed out, actually less accurate. On the other hand, Yamato was a terrible gunnery ship and never did well at any range in actual combat.
As for ROF, The Navweaps page has this to say about the Bismarck's guns; "Many references claim that this was the fastest firing large caliber gun ever built. The ROF figures listed above represent generally published data that would support that claim. However, Krupp official documents cite the ROF as being 26 seconds at a four degree elevation, not notably faster than that of other nations' large-caliber weapons. Note that at this elevation the range would be considerably less than 10,000 meters. It is possible that well trained gun crews would reduce this time to the 20 seconds necessary to meet a ROF of 3 times per minute. A May 1941 report by the German Artillerieversuchskommando - AVSK (Artillery Testing Command for Ships) stated that the turret ammunition hoists on Bismarck were capable of delivering between 23 and 25 rounds per minute (for all four turrets), the equivalent of 3 rounds per minute per gun. However, this same report stated that design faults in the hoists led to two significant breakdowns during the evaluation, both of which caused long interruptions in the ammunition supply. Finally, it should be noted that Bismarck fired a total of 91 rounds during her thirteen minutes of firing at the Denmark Strait battle, which is actually less than one round per gun per minute".
See; German 38 cm/52 (14.96") SK C/34
What is important in ROF calculations is not so much the number of rounds per minute, but the weight of shells fired per minute. Taking the lowest listed ROF for each ship (2.3 RPM for Bismarck and 1.5 RPM for Yamato), the Yamato clearly outmatches Bismarck, 43,456 pounds per minute to 32,458 pounds per minute for Bismarck.
Who would win in a battle between Yamato and Bismarck? It's difficult to tell, but given the limitations of both ships, it could easily result in a draw unless the Yamato managed to get a hit. In that case, the advantage would have to go to the larger ship because of he Yamato's greater ability to absorp punishment and cause damage to the Bismarck. The greatest determinant factor in a fight between these two ships is very likely to be random luck.
What makes the US a place Hitler would not want to invade after Europe and the USSR,btw? That would make a pretty lot more German speaking people...I´d say there was more at stake than the European part and FDR knew it.
Considering by the time the U.S. entered the war the threat of a German invasion of Britain was very small, we would have gotten along quite nicely without America.
Though we woulsn't have been able to defeat them without the U.S.