PDA

View Full Version : Hood/Prince of Wales vs Bismarck/Prinz



redriver6
February 18th, 2009, 06:16
Collin invited me to start a new thread on this subject so i reckon i will....

what if...the Hood and PoW instead of turning at extreme range to present their broadsides...what if they had continued to close the range at high speed firing only the forward guns.

its easy to armchair general (or in this case admiral) but the closer the Hood got, the less extreme the plunging fire would have been...who knows.

i realize that PoW was a 'green' ship and was having problems with her fancy new turrets but....she was the ship that put a hole in the Bismarck's bow causing a fuel leak..

crashaz
February 18th, 2009, 19:31
I have thought about this too. I would have closed the distance to avoid the plunging fire as well. It had to have been well known that Hood was vulnerable to this type of fire.

I wonder if Hood had altered course slightly after she took the first hits that she amidships afire? Then there was the second rounds that did her in.

I also thought it a mistake Hood took Prinz Eugen under fire.

BTW... stickied! Good discussion!

Dirtman
February 19th, 2009, 06:01
Yo redriver6;



what if...the Hood and PoW instead of turning at extreme range to present their broadsides...what if they had continued to close the range at high speed firing only the forward guns.

I don't think this would have made a great deal of a difference. I feel the RN made a huge tactical mistake in sending an "old man" (Hood - outdated protection) & a "green kid" (PoW - not yet fully "worked up" or her armament fully tested & calibrated) into harms way.

Consider:
1) Bismarck had very thick (contemporary) horizontal protection. As shown during the final confrontation with the RN; she was reduced to a floating junk pile from both horizontal & plunging rounds yet neither could sink her.

2) Both Bismarck & Prinz Eugen were carrying an unknown quantity of faulty shells (duds)



I realize that PoW was a 'green' ship and was having problems with her fancy new turrets but....she was the ship that put a hole in the Bismarck's bow causing a fuel leak..

Armor plating in this area would have been very thin (if it existed at all) as it was not considered a "vital" area. Had PoW fired a split second later, the round may have hit a heavily plated area or upper works. I think it was a "lucky shot" at best but it did seal Bismarck's fate.


Summation:
Altering the tactics of this battle would have definitely changed the outcome as Hood would not have succumbed to the plunging round that killed her.

But on the other hand Hood's horizontal protection was circa 1920 .... Bismarck's plating was modern & her main battery was very high velocity AP. If Hood would have been closest to Bismarck I suspect she would have suffered extreme damage to her upper works & structure. (similar to Bismarck's fate)

Factor into this the RN's nasty habit of stacking shells & propellant bags in the turrets for ready use and all the ammo scuttles chocked open (for a sustained high rate of fire) most certainly would have led to her demise if just one of Bismarck's shells had penetrated a turret. This was a lesson not learned by the RN at Jutland & is exactly what was "wrong with our bloody ships today" as Beatty said.

Bismarck too would have sustained more damage which might have made her turn & run for home thus negating the whole chase.

The loss of Hood stunned the Admiralty & shocked the Brits; but how would both have reacted to the return of the "Pride of the Royal Navy" as a battered hulk? Just think of what pictures of her in every newspaper would have done to British morale in general. Knowing she was lost was a terrible thing ... but looking at her corpse I fear would have been far worse.

Sinking Hood did somewhat demoralize the Brit's (in the short term) however it did galvanize their spirit (and resolve) which directly led to Bismarck's destruction and the moral boost that the victory instilled.

Lastly:
Using your scenario: Hood most likely would have been lost but just later in the battle. Perhaps if PoW had been closer to the battle after Hood's demise; Prinz Eugen & Bismarck could have split her fire (ala "River Plate") & sunk her too. A HUGE victory for the KM & a catastrophe for the RN.

This victory & survival of Bismarck might have led Hitler to send Bismarck & Tirpitz out together .... with the RN spread so thinly ...... who knows what could have happened next?



BTW ..... don't get me started on Pearl Harbor!!! :argue:



Collin invited me to start a new thread

Be careful .... Collin is the person your mother warned you about!

......76396
.
.

grumpos
February 19th, 2009, 07:36
Hood was being targetted by a lot of guns and had to do something. A broadside would have given her a far better chance of knocking out some of those guns.

Best wishes
Steve P

Togo
February 19th, 2009, 11:14
Agree with Dirtman. With hindsight, it was almost a suicide mission taking into account the general practices in the RN at the time.

Both RN vessels could have done a lot of damage to Bismarck if they managed to get closer and concentrated on the larger vessel, but they would have been sinking wrecks themselves.

grumpos
February 19th, 2009, 12:17
Could there have been a case for the Hood and P of W staying further back? I've read somewhere that the German battleships were outclassed by the British at long range.

Best wishes
Steve P

redriver6
February 19th, 2009, 19:59
Could there have been a case for the Hood and P of W staying further back? I've read somewhere that the German battleships were outclassed by the British at long range.

Best wishes
Steve P

that is an intresting idea but apparently the weather was deteriorating and Holland didn't want the two German ships to escape into the mist again. The website for the Hood states that Holland wanted the Suffolk and Norfolk to engage the Prinz while the PoW and Hood took on the Bismarck...but a ban on radio usage prevented the heavy cruisers from getting the message.

Apparently the two British capital ships also left 4 destroyers behind because they couldn't keep up in the heavy seas.

A battleship, battlecruiser, 2 heavy cruisers and 4 destroyers..hmmm what if they could have concentrated their forces before attacking?

I tend to agree that result may not have been all that different if the range was decreased but still the chances for Hood's survival was slightly better with the shells coming in on a flatter trajectory.

i think they also should have put PoW out front..let her absorb some of the initial punishment while the Hood lurked behind waiting to charge forward...evidently the PoW was the lead ship earlier in the morning but switched places right before the battle.

ya know...at this point in the war Great Britain was standing ALONE against the Nazi onslaught, the RN was still powerfull but fading... i can only imagine what it must have been like for the Brits to learn of the loss of its most famous warship. i mean what if tomorrow i picked up the paper and read of the loss of the Abraham Lincoln with all hands except for a handful...devastating.

other than the two atomic bombs was there a greater loss of life in WW2 caused by one shot???

(btw...i don't think that Holland really had any other choice but to do exactly what he did)

hewman100
February 20th, 2009, 06:06
I'd often wondered what would have happened if Norfolk and Suffolk had been brought into the fray.

redriver6
February 21st, 2009, 15:37
couple of really good websites on the subject..

http://www.kbismarck.com/

http://hmshood.com/

Collin
February 22nd, 2009, 09:43
Before we all make a decision, let me lay some facts on you.

Between the wars the Germans spent a great deal of time and effort on their gun sighting lenses and systems, far more then the Royal Navy did. Consequently, their firing was more accurate then the RN.

The guns on the Hood were antiquated in comparison to all the other ships taking part, she was out-ranged by all the ships present except for the Brit cruisers.

The Prinz Eugen was the first ship to open fire at over 36,000yds.

Holland ordered the Prince of Wales to turn its radar off as it was interfering with the Hood's radar, after the Hood's demise, PoW turned her radar back on and started to score hits before retreating under a smoke cloud.

Hood only fired one salvo (2 shells) at Prinz Eugen before checking her fire and switching to Bismarck.

It is believed that shells from Prinz Eugen started the fire in the ready use lockers of the UP's and 4" which spread sternwards and down, the loss report states that the committee believes that a 15" shell then penetrated to the aft 4" and 15" magazines and caused the detonation of them.
There is another school of thought that the fire raging topside managed to get down the to the 4" magazine which detonated and took the 15" one with it.

Both British ships were having to steam head on into gale force sea's which ruined the optics of the gun laying system on board PoW with spray.

Holland had to get closer just to get the Hood into range (PoW outranged her by 8000yds) and also knew the risk of plunging fire.

PoW was 4-5 cables off Hood's starboard quarter and ran the risk of being hit by "overs" from the German ships. In fact several shots came close enough to her to shower her decks with shrapnel.

Regrettably, .zip files are not permitted within the thread or I could have posted the Admiralty Report.

A plan is the British plan from the Admiralty report.

B plan is the German plan of the battle.

regards Collin:ernae:

Collin
February 23rd, 2009, 07:19
Does anyone know if it was by accident or preplanned that the German ships concentrated their fire on the Hood?

I can understand Hood mistakenly firing on Prinz Eugen because of the PE's appearance is so like the Bismarck's, but the 2 British ships are no way similar.

regards Collin:ernae:

redriver6
February 23rd, 2009, 11:40
personally i think it was more by 'accident' if you want to call it that or just because Hood was in the lead..thats why i wonder what the deal was with the PoW taking the lead earlier in the morning then switching places with Hood so the Hood could resume the lead.

Apparently the Germans didn't realize they were up against two heavy units until after the engagement began!!

The Prinz was in the lead for the Germans because the concussion from Bismarck's 15" guns disabled her radar!? when she fired at the Norfolk the day before.

redriver6
February 23rd, 2009, 22:36
this is something i found in a publication i have had for several years:

Warship Profile 19
HMS Hood/Battle-cruiser 1916-1941
by R.G. Robertson, CA

Page 162
If the 'Hood' encounters the 'Bismarck'
On 20 April Admiral Whitworth made known his intentions if an 'enemy in sight' report was recieved: the Hood would close the enemy at so as to bring her guns within effective range. If possible the approach would be 'end-on' so as to present the minimum target. (The weakness of the Hood's deck armour made it imperative that any action be fought at as close a range as possible. The closer the range the flatter the trajectory of the shell and the less likely it would be to penetrate through her decks and reach the magazines.)

note- Adm. Whitworth left the Hood on May 8 and was replaced by Vadm. Holland on May 12.

redriver6
March 18th, 2009, 18:20
here is a couple of scans from a book i have that shows the armor thickness in mm for the Hood and Bismarck...i guess it is easy to see where a heavy shell could get through on the Hood...although the armor isn't incredibly weak like one would think...in fact its thicker in places than the Bismarck..

Collin
March 18th, 2009, 21:25
Hoods deck armour was good enough to defeat 8" shell from heavy cruisers, but the weakness was exasperated at this time by the amount of secondary and UP ammunition stored in the ready use lockers.

Another thought?

What might have happened if she meet with one of the German battlecruisers with 11" guns is a ponderable.
She had the speed to catch them and if fought wisely would have stood off to pound them/it.

Most armour plate used by the world navies by this time was of similar strength, it was the way that it was fitted that made the difference.

Of course the stern was the Achilles Heal of all ships (as many found out the hard way).

regards Collin:ernae:

CrisGer
May 19th, 2009, 09:26
An interesting footnote on history, the day before the battle, the Captain of the Hood and some of his officers climbed a mountain on the Isle of Skye, and left a handwritten note in the Cairn at the peak...the note was still there in the 1970's when i was in UK for university...

he said something to the effect that this was the most beautiful view he had ever seen, the view across the sea to the outer hebredies....

it was certainly one of the last views he had... a poignant tiny piece of history.

crashaz
May 19th, 2009, 18:17
Wow didn't know that. Thx CrisGer!:wavey:

Collin
May 19th, 2009, 22:34
If it was the day before the battle, whats the Captain doing on a mountain top with some of his officers when his ship has been at sea on a war footing, for two days?

Collin

hewman100
May 20th, 2009, 01:50
The day before they returned to sea perhaps?

Collin
May 20th, 2009, 05:59
The day before they returned to sea perhaps?

Well with a little question I found that the Hood visited Portree, Isle of Skye, 23 June - 1 July 1925, then to Portrush, Co Antrim.

http://www.axfordsabode.org.uk/pdf-docs/hood03.pdf

page 43

Perhaps this is when the note was left?

C

fliger747
May 20th, 2009, 08:13
Holland was according to his plan trying to reduce his range and vunerability to plunging fire. They were about to turn to port to unmask all guns when Hood recieved the fatal hit. A ship heading toward you presents a good target as range was always the hard thing to compute and the length of the ship presents a much better likelyhood of a hit.

The Hood's 15 inch guns were the classic WWI guns fitted to most british battleships (all except Prince of Whales class and Nelson Class). They were even fitted to the post war Vanguard. A somewhat mediocre weapon, they were reliable and accurate. However even the very powerful 12" guns fitted to the USN Alaska class had at least equal penetration.

My guess is that the parsimonious British had less recent gunnery practice that the just worked up Bismark. The P o'W's two hits did eventually prove fatal to Bismark's sorte in the final event. The fuel loss forward being the most critical, but the other did penetrate the side belt and flood an aux generator room.

The Germans biggest problem... Admiral Lutjens...

An intersting historical episode! T.

crashaz
May 20th, 2009, 19:16
Something tells me Hitler made them all fell like 'Please don't let me screw up' .


A paralyzing situation for all but their best military leaders... of which the Navy had none other than the sniveling Doenitz.

hewman100
May 21st, 2009, 02:01
Something tells me Hitler made them all feel like 'Please don't let me screw up' .


After the ignominious end of the Graf Spee this was the Kriegsmarines last chance to show the potential of big gun raiders and it failed, thus reducing it to effectly a U-boat Navy.

Sascha66
May 21st, 2009, 04:37
There is a very interesting book written by a surviving officer of the Bismarck in German (I checked and it was translated: Battleship Bismarck : A Survivor's Story (https://www.millennium.marmot.org:444/search%7ES93?/aM%7B232%7Dullenheim-Rechberg%2C+Burkard%2C+Freiherr+von%2C+1910-/amullenheim+rechberg+burkard+freiherr+von+1910/1%2C1%2C2%2CB/frameset&FF=amullenheim+rechberg+burkard+freiherr+von+1910&1%2C%2C2) , Müllenheim-Rechberg, Burkard, Freiherr von, 1910-, Annapolis, Md. : Naval Institute Press, c1980.). Freiherr von Müllenheim-Rechberg was adjutant to Captain Lindemann and 4th artillery officer.

As I gather from the book, the crew of the Bismarck were surprised by the result of the first broadsides, so there must have been some element of fluke involved. But it also becomes clear from the book that the Bismarck as a ship was vastly superior to any one Britith battleship of the time regarding offensive and defensive capabilities (borne out by the amount of damage necessary to eventually sink him). The artillery technology was also much more advanced than their British counterparts. They also had a crack crew and an excellent first gunnery officer who established excellent drills.

I believe that British naval officers probably underestimated the strength of the Bismarck, which would be understandable since she was an innovative ship for her time.

For me it is simple: to sink Bismarck, due to his overwhelming strength, the British would always have needed superior numbers, close range or luck (I am assuming that the naval skills were equal on both sides). As it turned out, a combination of all three turned out to be involved - a huge fleet giving chase, lucky torpedo hits on the rudder delivered by planes and close-range torpedo attacks to after close-range pounding by artillery to eventually sink Bismarck.

Bismarck was just one ship and the RN then still ruled the Atlantic.

fliger747
May 21st, 2009, 19:38
I have several interesting books on Bismark, including the "Survivor" book. Bismark was of course a well founded warship, though not a particularly inovative one. Protection wise perhaps an updated version of those that fought a Jutland would be a good thought train. Bismark did not introduce any major ideas in propulsion, armament or protection.

It did not take long in the final showdown to render her totally ineffective and she did not score a single return hit. German optics were always quite good as were the quality of their armaments. The British, in the interwar period were so parsimonious that it is surprising that there was any Royal Navy at all. Think Bismark as a well executed and ballanced ship on a high tonnage, utilizing conservative construction.

Both Radar and aerial reconissance probably doomed the lone surace raider concept.

Had the Kriegsmarine actually waited till Bismark, Tirpitz and accompanying cruisers been able to sorte together they might have been able to shut down the Atlantic for a while and make some difference. Bottled up and destroyed in detail. What they lacked, as well as the British ships, legs....

Cheers: t.

Sascha66
May 22nd, 2009, 11:55
So Bismarck was only bigger not better... Which ship was regarded as the most advanced of the age at the time?

Cheers,
Sascha

fliger747
May 22nd, 2009, 16:12
Of any 35,000 ton ship the American South Dakota's had by far the best suite of protection endurance, anti aircraft protection and fire control. Given the Bismark has the most advanced powerplant of any EUROPEAN battleship. That said the USN ships of all types of the period achieved greater reliability and great economy/range with very high pressure/temperature steam conditions.

Bismark was not equipped to use her radar for gun laying rangefinding. In good visibility her excellent optical rangefinders worked well enough but was not the wave of the future. Washington in her night action against Krishima demonstrated the devestating effect of a good fire control system, in a matter of minutes. SODAK in the same engagement, due to some really self induced problems did demonstrate the effectiveness of her protection system. She did loose much effectiveness beacuse of the many hits penetrating lightly protected areas. Not one round penetrated belt, barbetts or the turrets, even at a fairly close range. Bismarks evenmtual loss was hastened by this same problem.

Armor. USN evaluation vrs the 16"45 cal rifle as fitted on Washington and SODAK was that the citadel and magazines were well protected, but there was little on these ships above the waterline not vunerable to this weapon at all ranges. The deck was penetrable outside of 11,000 meters.

Range: The power plant condition were not optimum for efficency at high speeds, a factor that with the loss of forward fuel, tied her operationally into a fatal path. The choice of a three shaft arrangement also proved to be unfortunate, allowing virtually no effective compensation for the jammed rudder scenario. The ships did exhibit excellent watertight subdivision. Furthermore the three shaft/ rudder setup was rather unstable in yaw, needing more frequent rudder correction than her contempories. Her available speed of 20 knots in a following seaway certainly helped her persuers finally catch her.

Armament: Designed on the smaller (generally) trend in weapons of the other European newer Battleships. Four turrets vrs three, more weight, longer belt, it's all a tradeoff. Her lackluster anti aircraft battery, not even fending off the impossibly slow Swordfish, was a major mis-estimation of the changing nature of sea warfare. Late in the pacific war, fast battleships were well armed enough to be something to avoid rather than to attack. The powder for the 15" was somewhat inovatively in brass cases rather than bags, which helped push the optimum loading rate to a possible 3 RPM. However the light shells had a fast muzel velocity and were optimum for short ranges as in lov viz in the North sea, but did not have the sectional density such as in the USN super heavy shells that gave superior penetration at most ranges. A maximum 30 degree elevation made accuracy problematical in a rolling seaway and caused a falloff in accuracy. Possibly a cause of her not making ANY hits in her final action. It did not permit maximum range of the rifles to be exploited. A function of the design being optimized for a low vizibility envoronment before the possibilities of Radar were realized.

A very creditable design by essentially a continental power, but not used to emphasize their considerable strengths. Perhaps only a well handled Iowa could have steamed her way out of the situation, but it was not that navy's style to try to get into such perdicaments. Lutjens pulled a couple of boners, in a situation that allowed none.

Cheers: T.

Collin
May 22nd, 2009, 17:52
So Bismarck was only bigger not better... Which ship was regarded as the most advanced of the age at the time?

Cheers,
Sascha

Oh Lord...now there's a can of worms......

Each nation thought their latest was the ultimate battleship at the time, trouble was their attitude to others and misplaced belief in themselves.
This attitude is still reflected in some books and other media relating to those time's, patriotism getting the better of fact.

IMHO-

Yanks for the monoblock barrels.
Japanese for the design of the hull.
Brits for the armour fitting and Officer's bar.
French and Italian for the galley and party-time in port.:kilroy:

Most probably the most advanced ship at the time was HMS Belfast, due to the experiments and findings found about her mining in 1939. These findings involved the whiplash effect on the hull and shock transmission through into the seating of the ancillary equipment like generators and pumps, it was realized how important this was when the ship had been damaged for this equipment to be able to function.
With American entry into the war and the Lend Lease clauses, this information was made available to USN Bureau of Ships and the American shipbuilders and incorporated into the capital ships then building.

One of the major reason's for the short legs on Brit ships was because of the worldwide refuelling/repair bases available to the RN. This was old thinking and didn't take into account aircraft (when this was started only seagulls flew).

American 12" guns were super heavy modern guns and not really comparable to guns made in 1915.

German crews were as good as any other nations, the difference is in the attitude of the political leaders. When you don't have to rely on merchant shipping to bring in the essentials for your country's wellbeing the training of the senior staff tends to go by the board so that fleet tactics is very old school, Commercial Raiding was the tactic employed and was in some cases quite successful.

regards Collin:ernae:

Collin
May 22nd, 2009, 19:11
Of any 35,000 ton ship the American South Dakota's had by far the best suite of protection endurance, anti aircraft protection and fire control. Given the Bismark has the most advanced powerplant of any EUROPEAN battleship. That said the USN ships of all types of the period achieved greater reliability and great economy/range with very high pressure/temperature steam conditions.

Bismark was not equipped to use her radar for gun laying rangefinding. In good visibility her excellent optical rangefinders worked well enough but was not the wave of the future. Washington in her night action against Krishima demonstrated the devestating effect of a good fire control system, in a matter of minutes. SODAK in the same engagement, due to some really self induced problems did demonstrate the effectiveness of her protection system. She did loose much effectiveness beacuse of the many hits penetrating lightly protected areas. Not one round penetrated belt, barbetts or the turrets, even at a fairly close range. Bismarks evenmtual loss was hastened by this same problem.

Armor. USN evaluation vrs the 16"45 cal rifle as fitted on Washington and SODAK was that the citadel and magazines were well protected, but there was little on these ships above the waterline not vunerable to this weapon at all ranges. The deck was penetrable outside of 11,000 meters.

Range: The power plant condition were not optimum for efficency at high speeds, a factor that with the loss of forward fuel, tied her operationally into a fatal path. The choice of a three shaft arrangement also proved to be unfortunate, allowing virtually no effective compensation for the jammed rudder scenario. The ships did exhibit excellent watertight subdivision. Furthermore the three shaft/ rudder setup was rather unstable in yaw, needing more frequent rudder correction than her contempories. Her available speed of 20 knots in a following seaway certainly helped her persuers finally catch her.

Armament: Designed on the smaller (generally) trend in weapons of the other European newer Battleships. Four turrets vrs three, more weight, longer belt, it's all a tradeoff. Her lackluster anti aircraft battery, not even fending off the impossibly slow Swordfish, was a major mis-estimation of the changing nature of sea warfare. Late in the pacific war, fast battleships were well armed enough to be something to avoid rather than to attack. The powder for the 15" was somewhat inovatively in brass cases rather than bags, which helped push the optimum loading rate to a possible 3 RPM. However the light shells had a fast muzel velocity and were optimum for short ranges as in lov viz in the North sea, but did not have the sectional density such as in the USN super heavy shells that gave superior penetration at most ranges. A maximum 30 degree elevation made accuracy problematical in a rolling seaway and caused a falloff in accuracy. Possibly a cause of her not making ANY hits in her final action. It did not permit maximum range of the rifles to be exploited. A function of the design being optimized for a low vizibility envoronment before the possibilities of Radar were realized.

A very creditable design by essentially a continental power, but not used to emphasize their considerable strengths. Perhaps only a well handled Iowa could have steamed her way out of the situation, but it was not that navy's style to try to get into such perdicaments. Lutjens pulled a couple of boners, in a situation that allowed none.

Cheers: T.

Why invoke American capabilities of 1943 in comparison? In the time frame of the thread American senior staff were of the same old school thoughts as the Germans.
Lutjens, Bey, Doenitz, had to operate within confines of their experience and under the orders of a ex WW1 corporal. With orders not to risk encounters with the RN capital ships because of German political standing.
American policy was 'battleship rules' coupled with isolationism, with a couple of forward thinkers in the fledgling carrier groups in the Pacific.

By this time British charges were bag-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BL15inch108lbCorditeSC280QtrChargeDiagram.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_15_inch_naval_gun

American engines were excellent but you had to pay the price in space.

German engines were over-engineered and complicated.

British engines were old fashioned and short legged.

regards Collin:ernae:

fliger747
May 22nd, 2009, 20:20
Tirpitz was a contempoary of the later ships. Bismark had she survived would have had to play on a harder field. Washington was comissioned about the time of Bismark'd demise. Ceratinly a worthy advisary on a much smaller tonnage. The SODAK engines were quite compact. She obtained much better protection over Washington by having more HP and a shorter hull with shorter but a thicker belt.

Hood was in my estimation one of the most beautiful warships ever built. But a victim of roundtuit modernization of the deck armour. An old naval Aviator's saying "better Lucky than good, any day". Adelbert Schnider was lucky, Holland's boys were not. Till just the end of the war, all American rifles of 8" and larger were bag guns. As these guns were often employed with reduced charges (10x bore life) for shore bombarbment, this made sense.

Bismark had some geographical advantages and disadvantages. Without a requirement for Panama canal passage, beam could be optimized which helps keep a good side protection at the forward barbettes and allows for improved torpedo protection, though these ships did in finality have the same system as the Scharnhorst. However the shallowness of the Kiel Canal and harbours of Germany did not allow as deep a hull girder as might be optimum.

One has to admire the British resolve to "Sink the Bismark". It became a test of national wills. Fearing Hitler more than the Brits was their downfall when it came to operational decision. Bismark was big, which conveyed many advantages when you look at the limitations that adherence to the 35,000 ton treaty inflicted on Rodney, Nelson and the Prince of Wales bunch.

I have always admired Suffok and Norfolk tagging along in and out of the fog by the Denmark Strait. Perhaps I'll drag out "Sink the Bismark" and watch it again tonight!

The saga will always remain a fascinating classic! Dogfight of the leviathians!

Cheers: T.

hewman100
May 23rd, 2009, 02:22
Her lackluster anti aircraft battery, not even fending off the impossibly slow Swordfish, was a major mis-estimation of the changing nature of sea warfare.

Cheers: T.

In a previous thread I had a discussion regarding this as I was under the same impression that the AAA on Bismarck was inadequate. It wasn't, it was actually rather better than that of its RN counterparts.

I and my opponent agreed that it was the fact of trying to hit head-on in the storm a target that had an 40ft wingspan and 7ft height flying at about a 110 kts just above the waves would quite impossible even with radar assisted guns.

fliger747
May 23rd, 2009, 07:54
H100:

I missed that discussion! Certainly everyone underestimated what sort of anti aircraft batteries would be required. Even the modern PO'W was found wanting when she and Repulse went out on their final sorte. The losses sustained in the Med were absolutly insane!

The USN, who finally got the idea, started out the war very poorly equipped. Certainly 50'cals didn't cut the mustard. By the end of the war the 20 mm was considered a "noisemaker" and the excellent Bofors "lacking knockdown power". But by that time it wasn't enough to shy the pilots aim. VT fuzes did a lot to help the 5" 38/Mk37 director combo become more than just adequate.

A hard lesson of anti aircraft defense... don't go out by yourself!

You have to admire Esmond and the other Stringbag guys for being there when their country needed them, under very difficult conditions. One of my favorite stories however was when the Swordfish could not catch the Itallian Fleet steaming into a headwind..... At least the British aerial torpedoes worked!

This was a time of extreme change in technology. One of the most important developments, accomplished by the "Boffin's" in Britan, was the Cavity Magnetron, which shared with the Americans, allowed development of the very effective centimeter radars.

This was a time that challenged souls and brought out the very best and worst of human nature.

CrisGer
May 25th, 2009, 08:23
remarkable thread and postings, very interesting to read.

my cousin was Captain of BB 39 (USS Arizona) at Pearl, and remains at his post. He and my grandfather who was surface mostly but who also wrote some of the early Sub doctrine for USN had many discussoins about what is talked about here, and over my time researching in the years since, I found the development of the capital ships worldwide very interesting and complex. Above all, the decisions of the men on the bridge and the overall command make the outcome somewhat set, tho moment to moment events always play a role as well. I continue to hope to find a naval sim that will allow true gaming of the Bismark sortie, I was able to game the Graf Spee campaign using pencil, paper and waterline (1200 scale) on a tennis court with the help of the British Admiralty, and saw some of the technical achievments that the Kriegsmarine had achieved playing a part in that overall engagement. The german fleet of which the Bismark was an early element was sadly never to see reality as Hitler had promised NOT to go to war before a balanced fleet was ready for sea, and the losses of the Norweigan Campaign were a brutal blow to the naiscenet fleet of the early war years.

As noted, Hitler had NO idea of what a deep water fleet could do, and doomed any hopes the naval command had of real success. I am sorry to see both Lutjens and Doenitz dismissed, for they both has many skills. Other family members were both surface and U Boat in the Kriegsmarine and did not dismiss either of them lightly, from what i have heard and read.

In the end, three factors, Men, ships and the sea all played a part in this remarkable sortie which almost succeeded and which, if balanced with sufficent escorts and a larger main element (including the Tirpitz) might have had a remarkable effect. The British Admiralty was well aware of the danger and responded accordingly.

Re the Hood and her visit to Skye, i dont know the facts of it, as i never followed up on the information i learned when in Skye in 1974, it was a poignant story and i had no reason to doubt the people who told me about it. It was a moving story. It would be interesting to find out, probably the local hiking club at Portree might well have the info and with the magic of the internet, it might be possible to learn more.

It is very interesting to read such excellent points about this encounter and I hope to think about what ppl have posted more, and at some point, to try to game some more of this out. The remarkable modding community of Silent Hunter IV has finally developed working assests to make it possible to play this out with all the capital units, and with the publication of some of the better more modern sims, such as Distant Guns and Jutland by Storm Eagle, we may get to actually try full modern computing power on navals sims and work on some of these questions in more detail. Thanks to all for this great thread.

Collin
May 25th, 2009, 10:19
CrisGer,

there was an old game called "Great Naval Battles", which came on 4 cd's.
The first 3 were WW2 and the 'bonus disk' was WW1.

Now if you are into watching the ships take hits and sink then this game isn't for you, but, if you are into strategy and tactics then see if you can get hold of a set.

It also has a lovely damage control page for each ship where you can allocate men and pumps to fires/flooding etc.

Mission builder was quite good as well.

regards Collin:ernae:

fliger747
May 25th, 2009, 13:07
Captain Franklin Van Valkenberg and Admiral Isaac Kidd, both lost with Arizona were well regarded officers. Today is the day set aside in America to specially honor such men.

T.

fliger747
May 15th, 2010, 18:06
I recently viewed again my old CD of "Sink the Bismark" and re-read several of the books I have on the subject. It would be interesting to "game" several of the possibilities open to Lujtens, and what the possibilities might have been for a sortie with Tripitz. This just could have brought the US into the war earlier.

Cheers: T

redriver6
May 16th, 2010, 00:10
I recently viewed again my old CD of "Sink the Bismark" and re-read several of the books I have on the subject. It would be interesting to "game" several of the possibilities open to Lujtens, and what the possibilities might have been for a sortie with Tripitz. This just could have brought the US into the war earlier.

Cheers: T

yep that would be cool...

http://www.boomspeed.com/redriver6/tirpitz04.jpg

http://www.boomspeed.com/redriver6/tirpitz02.jpg

http://www.boomspeed.com/redriver6/tirpitz01.jpg

dmaloof
May 16th, 2010, 00:26
Hi, i always wondered this. Bismarck caried up to 3 Ar -196 planes for recon and possible sortie. Were these carried on that trip when she was sunk? oif so, why werent they used as a offensive weapons against the British ships in order to provide some form of air cover close by.

Collin
May 16th, 2010, 03:25
Hi, i always wondered this. Bismarck caried up to 3 Ar -196 planes for recon and possible sortie. Were these carried on that trip when she was sunk? oif so, why werent they used as a offensive weapons against the British ships in order to provide some form of air cover close by.

There was a gale blowing with heavy sea's, launch catapults on both German ships and POW were fixed athwart-ship, this would have required the ship to turn beam on to the sea to launch aircraft.

To launch would have perhaps made the ship vulnerable to the enemy or have been tactically wrong and most probably a suicide mission for the aircraft crew as landing would have been a terminal affair in those sea's.

regards Collin:ernae:

fliger747
May 18th, 2010, 16:52
There was a gale blowing with heavy sea's, launch catapults on both German ships and POW were fixed athwart-ship, this would have required the ship to turn beam on to the sea to launch aircraft.

To launch would have perhaps made the ship vulnerable to the enemy or have been tactically wrong and most probably a suicide mission for the aircraft crew as landing would have been a terminal affair in those sea's.

regards Collin:ernae:

The plan toward the end was to launch one of (or the remaining) seaplane with the war diary to preserve the ships actions for study.. and eventually history. Apparently either the catapult or the plane (I forget) had been damaged and the aircrews went down with the ship.

Cruisers, at least in USN practice, carried aircraft mostly for scouting, such as the Marblehead's patrols in the Mid-South Atlantic. Battleships carried airccraft mostly for spotting of shellfire. The Japanese used them at night for dropping illumination, as in the slot. Some capital ships used dye in the bursting charges to differentiate their splashes from other ships in line.

Bringing aircraft aboard always an interesting issue. Bismark was probably not tactically able to make this evolution during much of the time she was shadowed. Techniques used were to make a turn and have the aircraft land in the bight where the ship would make a "wave shadow". Sometimes oil could be released as well to calm the surface. Another issue for Bismark, being chased, sighting of her aircraft could narrow her location, as the presence of land aircraft revealed the presence of nearby carriers.

Cheers: T

safn1949
May 20th, 2010, 15:01
I recently watched a documentary on the sinking of the Bismark that claimed she weighed upwards of 50,000 tons of course in defiance of the Washington accords.What was the true loaded and empty weight?

Ivan
May 23rd, 2010, 16:56
Hi SAFN1949,

The Washington Treaty specified something called "Standard Displacement" which was calculated without fuel and without "Reserve feed water" for the boilers. The owning country also specified what the ammunition load was, so often the Standard Displacement was many thousands of tons below the actual displacement of the ship as she left port. The owning navy might specify a load of 75 rounds per main gun while the ship was actually capable of carrying 200 rounds per gun. The US Navy tended to do a lot of that though not with the numbers I mentioned.

From memory, the King George V class was well over 40,000 tons at full load, and she was one of the few classes that were within treaty limitations of 35,000 tons at standard displacement. The Nelson and Rodney were well under the limit. The US Navy North Carolinas and South Dakotas were just a few thousand tons over the limit. The Italian Roma and Bismarck were WAY over the limit with standard displacements in the low 40,000 ton range. I believe that one on one, the KGVs were pretty close to an even match with the Bismarcks at least in offensive power.

I like battleships.
- Ivan.

Ivan
May 23rd, 2010, 17:18
Oh yeah,
The even gun power of the KGV and Bismarck is on the assumption that the guns on KGV actually worked as advertised. Even unopposed when reducing Bismarck to a wreck, she often could not fire full broadsides because one gun or another had problems. I also wonder if there were serious dispersion problems because of proximity of the gun tubes or perhaps the guns were staggered in firing as in Iowa.

- Ivan.

fliger747
May 24th, 2010, 08:42
Oh yeah,
The even gun power of the KGV and Bismarck is on the assumption that the guns on KGV actually worked as advertised. Even unopposed when reducing Bismarck to a wreck, she often could not fire full broadsides because one gun or another had problems. I also wonder if there were serious dispersion problems because of proximity of the gun tubes or perhaps the guns were staggered in firing as in Iowa.

- Ivan.

The Standard displacement of Bismark is quoted as 41,673 tons and battle load at 50,129. Bismark's rifles were a fairly high velocity weapon, which may have been a good compromise fro North Atlantic conditions. USN practice was for a lower velocity piece with a superheavy shell, which gave better deck penetration at longer ranges. Prince of Wales did penetrate Bismark's armor amidships and more importantly caused loss of bunkerage forward. For a raider, even light damage can prove fatal in the long run. Certainly Prince of Wales and KGV suffered from main battery relibility issues. Mainly as a result of over complicated interlocks to prevent magazine explosions such as destroyed the battle cruisers at Jutland. Kriegsmarine relied on cased charges and IJN better training. The USN somewhere in between.

Cheers: T

Cheers: T

fliger747
May 24th, 2010, 11:58
A few other notes on the main armement of Bismark: The 15" Model 1935 Mk 47 gun fired a 1764 lb shell to a max range of 39590 yds. Muzzel velocity was 2952 fps. By comparison the USN 16" shell mounted on the contemporary North Carolina/ SODAK's weigh in at about an additional 1000 lbs! At greater ranges the penetrating power of the heavier shell on deck armor was significant. Because of the greater area of decks as opposed to belt armor, truly sufficent protection from bombs and plunging shellfire became more and more problematic.

As was the issue with SODAK at Guadalcanal, the unprotected uperworks are vulnerable to even much smaller caliber shellfire. The Main fire control director of Bismark was put out of action quite early in the final engagement by an 8" shell fire from one of the cruisers.

As one of the few duels to the death amongst the leviathians, it will always be an interesting engagement.

Then there is the fuel issue....

Cheers: T

HouseHobbit
May 24th, 2010, 12:22
I gress people will debate this for many years to come, but the bottom line was, the RN was outmatched..
German gunnery was better the Bismarck was a newer better ship..
Bad Luck for the Brits..
In war somtimes the expected, and what really happens, are two different things..

Ivan
May 25th, 2010, 17:23
Hi Fliger747,

Your quoted muzzle velocity for Bismarck's guns had me bothered for a while. The actual MV is actually not terribly unusual at 2690 fps. The interesting thing is the rather poor barrel life of this gun. Check out this site for pretty good information on naval weapons:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_15-42_mk1.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_14-45_mk7.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.htm

From specs, the German gun is pretty mundane other than firing rate. The performance doesn't appear to be any better than the British WW1 era gun. Two aspects are a bit surprising about the German gun:

1. The barrel life was unusually short.
2. The rifling was gain-twist.

Note that the broadside weight of a KGV was heavier than that of the Bismarck by a reasonable margin. (Now that is assuming of course that the goofy interlocks on the British ship would allow full broadsides! ;-)

- Ivan.


A few other notes on the main armement of Bismark: The 15" Model 1935 Mk 47 gun fired a 1764 lb shell to a max range of 39590 yds. Muzzel velocity was 2952 fps. By comparison the USN 16" shell mounted on the contemporary North Carolina/ SODAK's weigh in at about an additional 1000 lbs! At greater ranges the penetrating power of the heavier shell on deck armor was significant. Because of the greater area of decks as opposed to belt armor, truly sufficent protection from bombs and plunging shellfire became more and more problematic.

Cheers: T

fliger747
May 29th, 2010, 10:17
My info on the German armement is from Garzke and Dulin's "Battleships, Axis and Neutral Batleships od WWII". They have a 107 page chapter on Bismark and Tripitz. The short barrel life is directly related to the high velocity. The cased powder did permit a higher theoretical rate of fire and had some advantage in making the system more resistant to powder train explosion. However bagged charges did allow a greater tailoring of the charge to the intended purpose. In USN practice use of partial charges vastly extended barrel life and improved the tajectory for applications such as shore bombardment. It is ironic the only time Tirpitz used her main battery against an enemy target was shore bombardment at Spitzbergen. The barrel life was somewhat similar to the rated of most large Naval Rifles of the era if fired at full charge. Such barrels were lines and a new liner placed inside the structural gun tube, a shipyard operation!

In action against armored ships the sectional density of the shell and the design of the cap and fusing were paramount. Though used as a yardstick, I am not sure that weight of broadside meant as much as the details. An interesting example is the 12" gun used in the Alaska's, which had equal penetrative power to the British 15" gun a in Hood, Warspite etc (addmittedly a WWI weapon). This due to a heavy shell with a lot of weigh for it's frontal area. The size of the bursting charge not being so important as the ability to penetrate, at least in this application.

Bismark and Tirpitz had a modest 30 degree maximum elevation which for the visibility conditions in the North Sea and North Atlantic was considered sufficent for the engagements anticipated. However Bismark found that rolling conditions made a greater potential elevation desireable.

I do not know whether or not Bismark was capable of firing with reduced charges using the cased powder system. This would certainly be useful for a commerce raider.

These ships were designed for very different conditions than say the contemporary USN ships which were largely optimized for Pacific operations.

Cheers: T

fliger747
May 30th, 2010, 09:56
Above somewhere the use of the Arado float planes was queried. Tirpitz on one of her North Sea sorties was being dogged by a British recon plane (and Tovey somewhere in the area). In big seas and bad weather and without destroyers, she launched both, one to try to chase off the shadower and the other to scout to make sure the way ahead contained no traps. Far too rough to recover on shipboard, so the planes diverted to Bodo, an option not available in the Atlantic!

The Brits had the Hurries mounted on some merchant ship catapults, for a one way trip to chase off or shoot down Condors etc. The pilot guarenteed to get wet at the end of the mission, at best.

Cheers: T

redriver6
June 3rd, 2010, 21:06
i could probably go into mission builder and make that happen..

Ivan
June 11th, 2010, 14:06
Hi Fliger747,

I actually wrote up a very long-winded reply a couple weeks back to your post regarding Alaska's 12 inch guns but it got lost when there was a hiccup on this site as I was posting. The amount of data lost bothered me enough to stay away from this thread for a while. Hopefully I can remember some of the details:

I believe the ability of the Alaska's 12 inch shells to have equal penetrating power to shells from the Hood's 15 inch guns is mostly due to superior ballistic shape and a bit from superior construction. The Alaska's shells were much more aerodynamic and retained their velocity out much further.

Regarding the Bismarck as a commerce raider, I don't believe she was optimal for the purpose: She had very poor range. I also don't believe that reduced charge for a 15 inch shell would be useful for a commerce raider. Consider that no matter what the powder charge does to increase the life of the gun, the ship only carries around 100 rounds per main gun. I don't believe there ever has been a freighter built that is worthy of a 15 inch shell. The big guns work well for intimidation, but the secondary armament of 5.9 inch guns is quite sufficient for actual use on anything less than another warship.

The extreme maximum range of the main armament is mostly an academic discussion as I see it. The Bismarck's guns didn't have a particularly great range. It was only about 1000 yards longer than the KGV's 14 inch guns and the little 11 inch guns on the Scharnhorst ranged further than the Bismarck's. Even if the main armament can range out to 40,000 yards, there has never been an actual hit with a big gun past 27,000 yards.

With the all-or-nothing philosophy of armour, quite large portions of the ship are unarmoured. The hit through the bow that finished the Bismarck's mission didn't depend much on the particular type of weapon that fired it. Just about any big gun making a hit on her unarmoured bow would have crippled her the same way. (Pretty much what you were saying about damage on a commerce raider.)

I wonder also whether the short life of the German 15 inch gun was because of different standards regarding when a gun was "worn out".

Regards.
- Ivan.

fliger747
June 20th, 2010, 10:05
I do a lot of shooting of old military rifles and live in Alaska. Sectional density and penetrating power are always big topics of discussion when it comes to Bears.....

I think you are correct that Bismark and Tirpitz were not designed as commerce raiders. Essentially sea superiority vessles in the traditions of the High Seas Fleet. Perhaps Graf Spee etc could be considered more commerce raider designs. The piecemeal dribbling out of the German Heavy ships without viable air support was a vast waste of resources. A concentration of resources would have participated a serious issue indeed for the Royal Navy and possibly her cheering section.

Indeed Alaska's super heavy shells, for their caliber, were potentially very effective on armor. However her own armor would not have permitted reliable protection against ships significantly larger than cruiser size. Magnificent steamers and beautiful in form, but a battle cruiser in effect with the limitations of that type. Amazingly for a USN type, the mechanicals of the turrets did have some "issues".

The superheavy 16" shells fired by the lightweight 16:50 of the Iowa's were probably equal to the Yamato 18" in penetration because of their high sectional denesity. It is amazing however to note that the USN had no real idea of the size and especially armament of the Yamato etc till after the war! The Island Empire was pretty good at keeping their secrets!

Bismark's high velocity rifles made some sense in the North Atlantic, especially before Radar became sophisticated, as combat ranges were not expected to be extremely long due to the prevailing visibilities. It is believed that Dorsetshire destroyed Bismark's main fire control station early in the final engagement, greatly reducing her effectiveness after a few early stradles on Rodney. Not everything can be protected against large caliber shell fire, as witnessed by the reduction in combat effectiveness at Guadalcanal of SODAK from a great number of mixed caliber hits, none of which penetrated the armored parts of the ship. She was lucky to have Washington, an effective ship, as a backup!

Lastly, the figures I remember for barrel life for full velocity charges for the USN ships was not greatly over 100 rounds. The famous Paris Gun of WWI had shells of graduated size, to be fired in order!

Cheers: T

redriver6
June 22nd, 2010, 09:59
probably everyone here knows about these sites but i figured i'd post some links anywho..

http://www.hmshood.com/
http://www.kbismarck.com/

Collin
June 22nd, 2010, 15:14
Collin invited me to start a new thread on this subject so i reckon i will....

what if...the Hood and PoW instead of turning at extreme range to present their broadsides...what if they had continued to close the range at high speed firing only the forward guns.

its easy to armchair general (or in this case admiral) but the closer the Hood got, the less extreme the plunging fire would have been...who knows.

i realize that PoW was a 'green' ship and was having problems with her fancy new turrets but....she was the ship that put a hole in the Bismarck's bow causing a fuel leak..

I think we have rather drifted away from the original question.

regards Collin:ernae:

Ivan
June 22nd, 2010, 18:00
Hello Fliger747,

I also tend to shoot a lot of old military rifles. We have a pretty good thread going in the "Other Hobbies" forum. I don't hunt though.

Hi Collin,

Regarding the original topic, I believe that your "hypothetical" scenario was what actually happened. A ship heading directly at you presents a very good target and is much more vulnerable to plunging fire though for a shorter time.

With Naval weapons, the fall of the shot is an ellipse. The longer axis is parallel to the direction of the shot and is called the major axis (or semi-major). The shorter is called the minor (or semi-minor). Naval guns at extreme range especially when fired in groups tend to produce a pattern shaped like an ellipse. The dispersion will of course vary with range and with the particular mounting / gun involved, but there will always be a pattern. Now the issue is that this pattern at medium to long range is usually much bigger than an enemy ship. Even if aimed correctly, there is a fair chance that most or all of the shells will not actually hit the target. When a ship is heading directly toward you, the pattern of your shot will have a greater overlap with the target, so you have a better chance of a hit.

FWIW, the British KGV class had lots of problems with their mountings. I believe the Duke of York against Scharnhorst and the King George V herself averaged a bit less than 70% of the total possible rounds that could have been fired which means that various things failed about 30% of the time. I can find the actual statistics if you wish, but that is a ballpark correct number.

- Ivan.

redriver6
June 22nd, 2010, 18:17
actually it was my 'hypothetical' scenario....but my original thought was 'what if' the Hood and PoW had continued to close at high speed...which would also have reduced the plunging angle of the the Bismarck/Prinz's shells. that would have been a more agressive and somewhat 'death ride' approach. there may in fact be no real way the outcome would have changed much...unless like mentioned earlier if the RN cruisers had joined the attack.....maybe a Battle of the River Platte on a larger scale?

Collin
June 22nd, 2010, 19:26
Arghh Redriver me hearty, lay alongside 'em and have at 'em till they strike their colours.:salute:


regards Collin:ernae:

now excuse me while I put some armour plate on me parrot.

redriver6
June 22nd, 2010, 20:01
Arghh Redriver me hearty, lay alongside 'em and have at 'em till they strike their colours.:salute:


regards Collin:ernae:

now excuse me while I put some armour plate on me parrot.

:icon_lol:

upon further review...this was Jutland on a 'smaller' scale...

The RN lost a tactical element of the engagement but won the overall operation by sinking the Bismarck...

fliger747
June 30th, 2010, 09:35
Garzke and Dulin (Axis and Neutral Battleships) actually compliment Capt Leach (Prince of Wales) and his green crew in doing very well in a difficult situation, being overmatched and not really having opportunity to be fully trained up as was the Bismark. Irony was that Tirpitz was not included in the mission because of not being fully worked up yet, though probably with a higher training state that was PO'W when she was thrown into the gap. The Brits always seemed to do well when put into a pinch, rising to the ocassion. However it always seemed that they tended to rely on this a bit too much!

Garzke and Dulin bring up the question of Jean Bart, and if the Brits could have brought her over to their side. A very capable ship and possibly a good match for Bismark.

Cheers: T

dmaloof
June 30th, 2010, 09:53
Hi, Collin. thx for anwering about the arados of bismarck. I think if I was commanding her, I would have launched them on a suicide mission to try and inflict damage on the British ships. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

fliger747
June 30th, 2010, 17:52
I believe that the catapult was damaged, as it was intended to launch at least one of them to take the war diary (Kriegstagbuch?) ashore. In the final event the planes and crews went down with the ship.

Cheers: T

crashaz
June 30th, 2010, 20:35
Garzke and Dulin (Axis and Neutral Battleships) actually compliment Capt Leach (Prince of Wales) and his green crew in doing very well in a difficult situation...

... The Brits always seemed to do well when put into a pinch, rising to the ocassion. However it always seemed that they tended to rely on this a bit too much!



See Malaya '41.... relied a bit too much....

Should probably be a new thread... who were the idiots that lost PoW and Repulse.

Collin
July 1st, 2010, 10:59
See Malaya '41.... relied a bit too much....

Should probably be a new thread... who were the idiots that lost PoW and Repulse.

The Yanks....you had already lost yer own, now ya wanted ours.:icon_twi:

regards Collin:ernae:

crashaz
July 1st, 2010, 11:22
LOL! Your ships look a little too um... utilitarian. Adding a 4th gun to the turrets.... should have just upped the caliber to 16.

My favorite British warship......Warspite.... saw action everywhere.... too bad they gave her that ugly prewar modernization.... blocky appearance.

Collin
July 1st, 2010, 14:37
LOL!
My favorite British warship......Warspite.... saw action everywhere.... too bad they gave her that ugly prewar modernization.... blocky appearance.

You can still get bits of her down on the Cornish coast.

regards Collin:ernae:

fliger747
July 1st, 2010, 22:52
Yep, Warspite was a pretty competent ship for having fought at Jutland....

Rambling a bit are we? Still fun.

T

PRB
July 4th, 2010, 15:31
LOL! Your ships look a little too um... utilitarian. Adding a 4th gun to the turrets.... should have just upped the caliber to 16.

My favorite British warship......Warspite.... saw action everywhere.... too bad they gave her that ugly prewar modernization.... blocky appearance.

I kind of like the looks of the RN WW-I battlewagons in WW-II. That big "blocky" upperworks gave those ships an imposing look. Same with the USS California, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

fliger747
July 5th, 2010, 12:58
Hood seems to have been one of the first to set the style trend. A very beautiful ship if showing her design of an earlier era by the time of her loss. As far as rebuilds go, the most amazing rebuilds were Tenessee and West Virginia with a South Dakota style superstructure replete with single stack and fire control tower and bunched 5"38 twin turrets amidship.

Repulse and Renown were also good looking ships if perhaps relics of interwar projection of naval power. With later war necessity of extreme AA batteries made nearly all ships veritible beehives of topside clutter and activity.

I agree that Warspite, Vanguard etc display a certain aura of power, perhaps relating a bit to visions of midevil castles.

Bismark and her Kriegsmarine contempories tended to have clunky, unasetic superstructures from the bridge upward, topping out otherwise clean lines. Of course a situation totally unrelated to the ships functionality.... I have always wondered just what the functions of all of those levels in the Japanese "Pagoda Masts" were.

Fine lines can be found in very functional ships, the Fletcher's always looked just right and were a very good destroyer, possibly the best. They looked fast, even sitting still!

Cheers: T

Collin
July 5th, 2010, 13:57
Rambling a bit are we? Still fun.

T

Yep, I see PRB has set a new thread for the pagoda's, we can make a new thread for the disastrous Alaska class.:icon_lol:

regards Collin:ernae: