HMS Prince of Wales (Part.II)

What would have been happened in the Battle of the Denmark Strait, if the HMS Prince of Wales had been ready for battle on may the 24th 1941. Without any troubles with her artillery, a crew, which is familar with their ship etc.

Regards,
Che.

 

There are chances that she would have been the leadship, therefore taking that punishment HMS Hood historically took. And POW was more than able to handle it. Hence, no BOOM! at British side.

If Bismarck stays and fights (or gets slowed down), she will be sunk. Otherwise there will be similar hunt as historically.

 

it all comes on how lucky the bismarck is. you have to admit that it was a lucky shot when she blowed up the Hood.

 

Bismarck was lucky. That was all there is to it. Had POW been fully worked up she would have stood at least an even chance against Bismarck on her own.

 

i agree, PoW is almost equal to the Bismarck

 

Given the damage PoW inflicted on BISMARCK despite her defects, I'm inclined to agree.

 

I'd put it this way: Bismarck is almost equal to (fully worked up) PoW.

 

i'm only aware of the leak in the oiltanks of the bismarck. as far as i know, that was the only damage done to her

 

"After the Battle

Bismarck did not emerge from this action unscathed. She had been hit three times by 14­inch shells from Prince of Wales. One shell had penetrated an oil­fuel tank causing a serious oil leak and contaminating the oil fuel in adjacent tanks. Another had struck the side armour amidships, causing a leak, and subsequent flooding put one dynamo and one boiler out of action, reducing her maximum speed by two knots. The third hit caused only minor damage."
http://web.archive.org/web/19990220044747/warships1.com/GERbb08_Bismarck_history.htm

And another source:
"Bismarck had received three hits altogether. One had carried away the captain's motor-boat amidships, damaged the aircraft launching gear, landed in the sea beyond without exploding. The second had also struck amidships, penetrated the ship's side beneath the armored belt, destroyed one of the dynamoes, put No. 2 boiler-room and its two boilers out of action, wounded five men by scalding, caused some flooding. The third and most serious hit had struck the port bow about the level of the water-line, penetrated two oil tanks, come out the starboard side without exploding. This hit not only let sea-water into the oil tanks and quantities of oil into the sea, but knocked out the suction valves, and cut off from the engines a further thousand tons of oil.

Because of flooding the bow was down by two or three degrees, there was a list to port of nine degrees, the starboard propeller was coming out of the water. Captain Lindemann ordered counterflooding aft to restore the trim, and maximum speed was reduced to 28 knots."
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/history/bisescapes.html

 

Which is not good when you consider Bismarck displaced about a third as much again over the KGV class. That's what not building any battleships for twenty odd years does for you.

 

Agreed. Practice makes perfect, or at least better designed.

 

But that was the 'mission kill' which forced Bismarck to turn for home and led directly to her sinking.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

Why is it that the guns of all UK Bb/Bc's after Hood were so troublesome (they had by then gathered more than 20 years of experience more then the germans...?)?

 

Well, there wasn't many problems with 14"/45 Mark VII -guns (used in KGV-class); mounting was troublesome. Same goes with 16"/45 Mark I used in Nelson's, except it had originally too high MV which caused dispersion and excess barrelwear. This was fixed with lowering MV. Best solution would have been increased projectile weight but this was not done.

Besides, at the start of WW2, RN had little over 10 years of experience with heavy weight triple turrets and 0 years of experience with quadruple turrets. And to make things worse, add here complicated anti-flash measures etc (learnings from Jutland) and you get the picture.

 

This lack of experience with the bigger gun mounts was due to the 1922 Washington Treaty and the resultant moratorium on BB construction.

 

I believe the RN had a lot less trouble with triples than some nations. I think the USN was still having problems with some of it's cruiser triples into WW2.

 

Really? I hadn't heard that. Can you name a source for this belief?

 

Off the top of my head no. I know I've read it somewhere but I'll have to look around again. I do remember that the lay out of guns in the main turrets of Belfast was to prevent problems of interference between shells. If you look at some picture you'll see that the middle gun is mounted slightly higher than the other two.

Certainly the twin mount on the Italian Zara's suffered problems because the guns were very close together.





Oh and this is the first time I've had a statement questioned. Should I be swearing a blood oath of vengence against you now or something? :???: :???: :???:

 

No, I don't think that's necessary. I just got out of the hospital, and believe me, I lost enough blood while there.

Sometimes I think medical personnel are vampires...

 

There is a reason the beggers were once nicknamed leaches!