Bismarck

[KMS_Tirpitz]

 

Sorry about the bad quote, I tried to delete the table, and found that I couldn't really.

 

Anyway, the very tables presented are the same as on the downright pedantic navweaps.com http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm

It's a safe bet that it is in fact true. However, that doesn't make the first table correct, and I wonder why navweaps.com keeps using it (my only reason is that the book that has them has values for all the big guns). Firstly it is a calculation based on the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration, which not known for it's pinpoint accuracy. For instance the Italian 381mm/50 on the Littorio class, is estimated to have a whopping 510mm penetration at the same range (which I might point out is about as good as the 460mm guns on Yamato), while the Italians themselves tested it to be 402mm at 20,000 meters (while the Japanese tested 566mm at 20km).

 

Different test plates yield different values, however the values of these test plates are well known today as we have all the details available. Also such armour calculations are infact very accurate for the type of projectiles used back then, problems start to arise once we move into the APDS arena as the armour then starts to behave like a liquid and that is a lot harder to calculate.

[Unintentional_submarine]

 

Different test plates yield different values, however the values of these test plates are well known today as we have all the details available. Also such armour calculations are infact very accurate for the type of projectiles used back then, problems start to arise once we move in the APDS arena as the armour then starts to behave like a liquid and that is a lot harder to calculate.

 

Actually no. Just do a simple search and you will find that the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration is not considered terribly great.

[KMS_Tirpitz]

 

Actually no. Just do a simple search and you will find that the USN Empirical Formula for Armor Penetration is not considered terribly great.

 

It's what the US used to calculate the penetration of their own guns, and it wasn't far off there as far as I know

[Trainspite]

"Unintentional_Submarine Takes this part"

Also why is it you keep on insisting that your opinion is that of the majority? Good sir, you can't possibly know that!  I mean that much you must at least know, either that or your arrogance is getting the better of you. 

 

Now if you don't trust these figures (unsurprisingly, as I think you wont trust anything that has something good to say about anything German) because they are from a site on Bismarck then don't worry, cause thats not where the info was taken from, it was from several books and documents on the matter. The site navweaps shares the same figures, it's a very pro-allied site mind you: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm

 

 

 

Well, from what I have seen good sir, of the people who have posted their opinions on forums, the majority of posters seem to think that the battle of the Denmark Strait, would have been as I said above. There we go. I've clarified it for you ;). I'm not trying to speak on behalf of others, I'm merely stating that from what I have seen, the above is the case. As I said before, you are the very first person I have met (that is not a total fanboy) that has predicted that theoretical outcome of the Denmark Strait.

 

"(unsurprisingly, as I think you wont trust anything that has something good to say about anything German) "

 

Woah, Woah, Stop making assumptions about me Sir!

When I first started playing Games about WW2 (Blitzkrieg Anthology FYI) etc. I went straight for the Germans and their Campaigns, as I wanted my company Tiger 2s. I drew little pictures of StuGs massacring Crusaders and T-34s. Since these happy times of mindlessly being the Young Rommel, I have -A) Grown up, and B) Read many a history account, book, and internet article to the point which I would say I know a fair bit about Warfare. 

I'm not anti-german at all, its just I find the Germans during WW2 to be severely over hyped from reality. For example my Tiger 2s in Blitzkrieg were awesome insta-killing Pershings and Easy 8s etc., and then I found out that in real life, the likelihood is that only one of the six tigers would have made it to the battlefield. Unfortunately Bismarck has fallen into the same trap due to her fame.... She was a fine and great ship, but definitely not what many people crack her up to be.

Tl-dr: Please don't make assumptions about me. You don't know what is on the inside. ^^

 

Too bad that I had never paid much attention to Navyweaps, I mainly got my Naval knowledge from books, not the internet.

 

 

 

 

[KMS_Tirpitz]

Trainspite, it's litterally only you and a few others with a clear affection for the RN who've mostly disagreed with me so far, so if you've paid attention then you will have noticed that too  Which is hardly surprising - I'm not being 100% praiseful of the RN after all, as it even more so than the KM has been massively overhyped  I mean its the Royal Navy man! Come on ye scrub!  

 

I'm in the same boat as you with regards to my knowledge on Naval History, most of it is from books, two of which Navweaps & Bismarck.dk directly cites

 

Finally the US penetration figures for the 380mm SK C/34's, whilst obviously not 100% precise (they never can be for any gun), are accurate to within a fair margin. They are based on the knowledge that US test plates were of significantly lower effectiveness vs such capped projectiles than the Krupp's KC armour, as other German guns consistently performed better against the US plates than against German cemented plates. Thus the 410mm figure is infact conservative, and its also quite easy to recognize if you look at the specs of the guns. Also keep in mind that the performance of Allied guns was established using the same formula

[Trainspite]

Trainspite, it's litterally only you and a few others with a clear affection for the RN who've mostly disagreed with me so far, so if you've paid attention then you will have noticed that too  Which is hardly surprising - I'm not being 100% praiseful of the RN after all, as it even more so than the KM has been massively overhyped  I mean its the Royal Navy man! Come on ye scrub!  

 

I'm in the same boat as you with regards to my knowledge on Naval History, most of it is from books, two of which Navweaps & Bismarck.dk directly cites

 

Of course I have affection for my native navy, but I also understand that it the RN is not all that is around. That would be very rude of ignore the KM, the other KM(There you go JeeWeeJ, you can thank me later), the USN, the IJN, the RM, and MN, and the countless others. 

But you are wrong about me being biased towards the British, The Brits made some terrible mistakes over the years. For example, I'm quite Critical of Beatty at Jutland- he made far too many errors. I'm not afraid to admit that. 

As for others, I can't speak for them, but stop labeling anyone who disagrees with you a RN Nut. Its not fair to say that, until the people in question have spoken. Plus, there may be others just lurking, but deciding it is not worth the effort to write down their opinions. As you can see, I'm not a regular poster, I just stand by and observe most of the time.

 

Well, with the Germans around the corner, the next major navy to come out is the Royal Navy, so the Hype train for the RN will have begun. You will note that there are a few Bismarck Disappointment threads around. I expect that the KM hype is slowly dying.... 

But yes Royal Navy. What is not to like ^^. I have a few specific ships I would like to get. I'm looking at you Kent. 

[KMS_Tirpitz]

 

Of course I have affection for my native navy, but I also understand that it the RN is not all that is around. That would be very rude of ignore the KM, the other KM(There you go JeeWeeJ, you can thank me later), the USN, the IJN, the RM, and MN, and the countless others. 

But you are wrong about me being biased towards the British, The Brits made some terrible mistakes over the years. For example, I'm quite Critical of Beatty at Jutland- he made far too many errors. I'm not afraid to admit that. 

As for others, I can't speak for them, but stop labeling anyone who disagrees with you a RN Nut. Its not fair to say that, until the people in question have spoken. Plus, there may be others just lurking, but deciding it is not worth the effort to write down their opinions. As you can see, I'm not a regular poster, I just stand by and observe most of the time.

 

Well, with the Germans around the corner, the next major navy to come out is the Royal Navy, so the Hype train for the RN will have begun. You will note that there are a few Bismarck Disappointment threads around. I expect that the KM hype is slowly dying.... 

But yes Royal Navy. What is not to like ^^. I have a few specific ships I would like to get. I'm looking at you Kent. 

 

What you have just said holds true for all sides though Trainspite, there are people lurking with opinions swaying both ways. Thus it is a tad arrogant (I'm sorry, but that's how it comes across) to claim that the majority is with you or against me on this one, that you must be able to see

 

For example you say that in your opinion I've posted some "ridiculous" stuff, but if you would care to look into it you'll see that I've only written down things that are supported elsewhere by experts on the matter (Dave Saxton for example, who is writing a breakthrough book on German radar), or that you can find yourself in many of the books available on the subject. I'm not simply pulling these things out from the wazoo I promise you ^^

 

Also I like the Royal Navy ships as well (esp. when they ruled the seas in the 17th & 18th century, I'm a sucker for tallships), and don't see them as particularly inferior to the Germans ships either, but neither do I see them as superior. I do however recognize the Bismarck's superiority in armament & protection as compared to any RN ship of the period, as well as its slightly more automated FC system. In terms of radar the KM was initially slightly ahead of the RN, then slightly behind and then finally it was even stevens. 

 

Finally the saying "Good shooting brings straddles, good luck brings hits" is tongue in cheek saying within the field based on the fact when you straddle you effectively can't shoot anymore accurately, and wether or not you hit is then considered luck. Which isn't surprising considering the distances involved and the fact that the target has a lot of time to alter course between shots fired and shots landing. In other words the reason to be impressed by Bismarcks gunnery isn't because of her hits on the British ships, but more so because of her consistent straddling of her targets, irrespective of distance or movement, because that is the true sign of accurate gunnery.

[Trainspite]

I never said it didn't hold true for all sides did I? But it seems that either the people agreeing with you are all incredibly shy, or there are less of them. Just the general feeling I get. I'm still not trying to be Arrogant though...

And I'm still not trying to claim that it is specifically against you, but from my experience, it doesn't work out in favour of your views. I'm not saying they are with me either, they have their own views, like anyone else, they just correlate more with mine.

 

Well, I can't take back my opinions on what you have said. Some things you have said are still pretty unbelievable to me. And Remember experts will be experts, but there are always contrasting opinions. There will be an "expert" out there that completely disagrees with Mr Saxton. Mr Saxton also has opinions as well, you have to take everything with a pinch of salt.

 

While I don't deny Bismarck had better guns than any of the British Battlewagons at the time, Britain wasn't really focusing on Battleship development as much as other nations. Bismarck, while being probably more advanced than most British ships, wasn't that far ahead to say that she could outclass everything. A KGV can give her a run for her money, even if it would probably end up worse off. (Both ships in WoWs should go at tier 8 though)

 

You also have to remember, that while Straddling shows skill, it can also take luck, there are many factors that affect hitting and straddling, so anything can be counted as luck or skill really. 

 

At least we haven't been like many others on the forums who get threads closed for their behaviour, This conversation has been quite civilized, kudos.

[KMS_Tirpitz]

Mr. Saxton is basing his work on actual documented specifications and capabilities though, he's not merely expressing an opinion, which is what I like about his work. He knows how radar works down to the most intricate detail and relies on primary source material for information on equipment which can't be accessed directly (Axis or Allied) to reveal facts about these systems that have remained hidden since the war. In other words he's not relying on official wartime intelligence reports guesstimating about equipment that hasn't actually been layed hands on yet, which is what most books written on the subject have been based on unfortunately, and that quite simply because actual primary source material hasn't been available.

 

Fun fact: At the start of the war the British didn't even think the Germans had radar at all ^^ 

 

Trainspite, on 11 August 2015 - 12:43 AM, said:

At least we haven't been like many others on the forums who get threads closed for their behaviour, This conversation has been quite civilized, kudos.

 

True, and I wouldn't have it any other way  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bergwolf]

Interesting debate so far. Especially the last part.

First of all, this is an english speaking forum with lots of english and americans on board. Naturally they will advocate allied supremacy, just like any other people do for their own side, so talking about the "majority" is a bit misleading. Especially given that most anglo views today are influenced by a site called combinedfleet something something, a pretty biased site based on highly outdated sources.

 

That said, as someone who has followed equipment debates for 20 years or something, and being very much involved in lot of these in former times, assessment of equipment is a matter of fashion, not of objectivity. 10 years ago, for example, it was "in" to praise the sherman tank for it's ease of production and maintanance, thus making it the "best" tank of ww2 (completly ignoring that more sherman crews got killed then any other tank, with maybe the exception of the T34, curiously another contender for "best tank"). At the very same time, the BF109 was ridiculed for not being updated and replaced by more advanced fighters, even though the same principle of the sherman and the T34 applies here. This merely as an example that people tend to choose the criteria on which to judge these machines on rather subjective points, chosing those that serve their own interests best.

 

Since WoT and WT came out, german tanks have been majorly discredited, without taking into account that in both games they do not face their historical opposition but most of the time much better gear then what was the norm back then, especially in the 42/43 timeframe.

 

So all who go in with trumpets and flags waving should maybe take a step back. This applies to all sides of the argument.

I personally learn a lot from these debates, but it would be nice for a change if people stopped making this a contest, instead simply looking at the available sources, coming to conclusions. German radar development for example, was much, much more advanced then allied war time reports may make you believe, yet you still have people telling you that the british invented radar to begin with, that Germany majorly lacked behind during the war. A rather sad state of affairs.

 

 

[ThePluckyBrit]

One thing is for certain.

 

When the Bismark and Tirpitz get unleashed everyone will be in an uproar, because it's not sinking every ship it fires on with the first salvo.

 

It'll be the WoT Tiger/Tiger II all over again...will more then likely be as flammable as a matchbox as well.

[_Maou_]

One thing is for certain.

 

When the Bismark and Tirpitz get unleashed everyone will be in an uproar, because it's not sinking every ship it fires on with the first salvo.

 

It'll be the WoT Tiger/Tiger II all over again...will more then likely be as flammable as a matchbox as well.

 

Ain't every bb ingame so far a flammable hazzard -.-.The mighty HE spamfest and steel ships sinking becuse of blody fires from some crappy guns will continue with Bismarck and Tirpitz.Although the uproar part is correct but ain't it already.

[KMS_Tirpitz]

I just find it laughable that the two battleship types which were supposedly the most accurate in WW2, the Bismarck & Iowa class, both feature horrible dispersion ingame... 

 

Funny note, the Murmansk also features superior range compared to the Omaha class ingame, yet the Murmansk IS a Omaha, just a lendlease ship for the USSR... -_-

 

[Lance_Horne]

I just find it laughable that the two battleship types which were supposedly the most accurate in WW2, the Bismarck & Iowa class, both feature horrible dispersion ingame... 

 

Funny note, the Murmansk also features superior range compared to the Omaha class ingame, yet the Murmansk IS a Omaha, just a lendlease ship for the USSR... -_-

 

 

That is Wargaming for you, the Russian ships will have to be superior to other navies, even if in real life the opposite was true. They will never, because of their dislike of the Germans, let them have a superior ship.

[Thoddyx]

 

Range	Side Armor	Deck Armor
10,000 m (10,936 yards)	510 mm (20,08")
20,000 m (21,872 yards)	364 mm (14,33")
21,000 m (22,966 yards)	350 mm (13,78")
25,000 m (27,340 yards)	308 mm (12,13")
30,000 m (32,808 yards)		about 120 mm (4,70")
35,000 m (38,276 yards)		about 170 mm (6,69")
Note:	Based upon German face-hardened (vertical) and homogenous (deck) armor penetration curves and a muzzle velocity of 820 meter per second (2.690 feets per second)

 

Citation is wrong these informations does not come from german documents

Mister José M. Rico from KBismarck compiled ballistic informations from the German Fire effect tables

"Unterlagen und Richtlinien zur Bestimmung der Hauptkampfentfernung und der Geschoßwahl Heft h Schlachtschiffe Bismarck und Tirpitz" Berlin 1940

 

[quote name=

Range and Penetration Table for the 38 cm SK C/34 Guns. ¹⁾

 

Range (meters)	Elevation Angle (degrees)	Flight Time (seconds)	Angle of Fall (degrees)	Striking Velocity (meters/second)	Danger Zone (for a 10 x 30 meter target)	Dispersion (meters)	Armour Penetration 2) (millimeters) BELT - DECK
0	-	-	-	820
1,000	0.4	1.3	0.4	800
2,000	0.9	2.6	1.0	782
3,000	1.2	4.0	1.5	764
4,000	1.6	5.2	2.0	745
5,000	2.0	6.7	2.5	727	240
6,000	2.6	8.0	3.1	709	200
7,000	3.0	9.5	3.8	691	171
8,000	3.5	11.0	4.4	674	150
9,000	4.1	12.5	5.1	657	132
10,000	4.8	14.0	6.0	642	121	93
11,000	5.3	15.6	6.9	626	110	94
12,000	6.0	17.2	7.6	610	100	95
13,000	6.7	19.0	8.5	597	92	97
14,000	7.3	20.7	9.9	581	87	99
15,000	8.0	22.4	10.5	569	81	100
16,000	8.9	24.2	11.5	556	76	101
17,000	9.6	26.0	12.8	544	71	102	460 - n/a
18,000	10.4	28.0	13.9	532	69	104	442 - n/a
19,000	11.2	30.0	15.0	520	65	107	430 - n/a
20,000	12.1	32.0	16.4	510	61	110	412 - n/a
21,000	13.0	34.0	17.8	502	60	112	392 - n/a
22,000	13.9	36.2	19.0	492	58	114	378 - 86
23,000	14.8	38.4	20.7	485	57	116	362 - 90
24,000	15.7	40.6	22.0	479	53	118	350 - 95
25,000	16.7	42.9	23.7	474	51	120	335 - 100
26,000	17.7	45.2	25.4	469	50	123	320 - 105
27,000	18.8	47.8	27.0	464	49	128	306 - 110
28,000	20.0	50.2	28.6	461	48	131	294 - 115
29,000	21.1	52.9	30.1	460	46	137	286 - 120
30,000	22.3	55.3	31.9	459	44	140	275 - 126
31,000	23.6	58.0	33.6	457	43	145	266 - 135
32,000	25.0	61.0	35.0	457	42	150	256 - 144
33,000	26.2	63.7	36.9	458	42	157	245 - 150
34,000	27.8	66.7	38.5	459	41	163	236 - 158
35,000	29.0	69.4	40.0	461	40	170	228 - 165
35,550	30.0	71.0	40.9	462	40	173	212 - 170

 

¹⁾ This data has been extracted from the official German projectile curves contained in "100/40 g.Kdos Unterlagen und Richtlinien zur Bestimmung der Hauptkampfentfernung und der Geschoßwahl" which were kindly provided to us by William J. Jurens.

 

2) The penetration figures are for a 38 cm Psgr. L/4,4 Armour Piercing shell striking a 90º vertical belt and a horizontal deck. They don’t take into consideration the heel, pitch, and inclination towards the target ship at a particular moment or the designed slope of an armoured belt. All these factors change the striking angles of shells (that rarely coincide with their angle of fall) and their penetration capabilities.

 

based on the original Krupp formula used for creation of these charts I calculated the vertical penetration values for 0 km -15 km in 5 km steps based on the Kruppformula using the original constants and variables from the formula.

The Krupp formula is a mathematical expression of the real ballistic tests of german shells versus german armor plate.

 

But the following values are completetly theoretical(anything over 500 mm is mostly speculation) and should be taken with care as steel quality of very thick plates begins to suffer from heat treatment problems of thick armor plate as well as increased shell problems on impact with thicker plates.

 

distance [km]	striking velocity [m/s]	AoF [°]	Vert pen [mm]
0	820	0,0	840
5	727	2,5	720
10	642	6,0	605
15	569	10,5	502

[KMS_Tirpitz]

Yes, penetration performance over 500mm can only really reliably be established via testing for the reasons stated, but below that it should be accurate to within a fair margin. Add to this that German armour was approx. 23% stronger than US plate IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong) and we can start to make a comparison.

 

The British claimed their plate was slightly stronger compared to US plate, 25% IIRC.

 

This is supposedly what the US emperical penetration figures are based on.

 

There are other approximations out there, one by Nathan Okun, but he doesn't consider the differences in shell shape or treatment, and his shell trajectories are very.. erm... suspect. As such his end results are quite inaccurate IMHO. 

 

 

[Lance_Horne]

An interesting article on HMS Rodney's battle with Bismark, source www.naval-history.net

 

27th – Early in the morning Dalrymple-Hamilton addressed the crew of RODNEY and informed them the BISMARCK was damaged and that they and KING GEORGE V would engage her at dawn.

 

(Prior to the engagement the CinC issued orders for RODNEY and KING GEORGE V to manoeuvre independently. Thus he would give the BISMARCK two different targets to think about also he avoided Admiral Holland’s error of maintaining too close formation between the HOOD and PRINCE of WALES)

 

At 0730 hours KING GEORGE V, RODNEY, TARTAR and MASHONA commenced a long slow turn eastwards so as to be in position to open the engagement from the west of BISMARCK. This manoeuvre would place BISMARCK to their east where she would silhouetted against the rising sun.
Sunrise was at 0722 hours and when it came the wind was blowing force 8 to 9 from the north west with a rising sea and swell, visibility was 12 to 13 miles with rain squalls and the cloud base was about 2000 feet.
At 0755 hours Rear Admiral Wake-Walker in NORFOLK sighted KING GEORGE V and RODNEY whilst in sight of BISMARCK and signalled; Enemy bears 130¼ 16 miles.
At 0843 hours RODNEY sighted the BISMARCK at a range of about 24,700 yards.
At 0847 hours RODNEY, sailing at 16 knots, opened fire on the BISMARCK at a range of 23,400 yards. KING GEORGE V opened fire one minute later.

RODNEY fired two types of salvo, the outer guns of A and X plus the inner gun of B in a five gun salvo followed by the inner guns of A and Y and the outer guns of B in a four gun salvo and this is how she initially engaged the German ship. The reason for this pattern of firing was an attempt to limit self inflicted damage form the blast of her own guns.
RODNEY’s first two salvos were over, her third was a straddle.

At 0901 hours RODNEY fired her fourth salvo, two shells missed and two were hits. At least one of the shells hit in the vicinity of Bruno turret completely disabling it and partially disabling Anton; also the explosion tore upwards through the bridge killing many on the bridge.
At 0849 hours BISMARCK returned fire from her Anton and Bruno turrets, the only ones that could bear, on RODNEY. The first three salvos were short, straddle and over. One of BISMARCK’s shells exploded in the water off the port bow and the force of the explosion jammed her port torpedo tube doors.
At 0854 hours the heavy cruiser NORFOLK opened fire on BISMARCK at a range of 18,000 yards.
At 0916 hours RODNEY fired the first of twelve torpedoes from her starboard tube at the BISMARCK, this was the first time a battleship had fired a torpedo at another battleship. All the torpedoes except possibly one missed.
At 0918 hours RODNEY closed to 8,000 yards.
At 0927 hours BISMARCK fired her last shells from her forward turrets.
At about 0930 hours a 16in shell from RODNEY penetrated BISMARCK’s deck armour and exploded in the port engine room killing most of the crew and putting the engine room out of action.
At 0930 hours RODNEY closed to 6,000 yards to compensate for the failure of her fire control equipment.
At 0931 hours a 16in hit from RODNEY hit Dora turret, which was then abandoned by its crew due to smoke and gas. At the same time Caesar turret fired the last of her shells This hit and the exhausting of ammunition for Caesar turret, ended fire from BISMARCK’s after turrets.
At 0940 hours the heavy cruiser DORSETSHIRE opened fire on BISMARCK at a range of 20,000 yards.

 

(Between 1000 and 1015 hours BISMARCK’s crew were setting off scuttling charges that were pre-positioned at strategic locations throughout the ship. Each scuttling charge was in a rectangular white box labelled with a red "V" [abbreviation for "Versenken" = Scuttling].  The boxes contained six dynamite sticks, a timer, and a percussion fuse to be placed on inlet sea valves and condenser inlets when the scuttling order [Measure "V"] was given)

 

At 1000 hours one of RODNEY’s torpedoes was a probable hit.
At 1003 hours RODNEY closed to 4,000 yards.
At 1014 hours RODNEY ceased fire and withdrew in company with KING GEORGE V to the north east both battleships were dangerously low on fuel. During the action the Admiralty had signalled all ships warning that U-Boats were en route to the area, so this was a further reason for the ships to withdraw.

In the action RODNEY fired 380 x 16in AP shells (the AP shells weighed 2053 lbs and were 6 ft 4 inches long) and 716 x 6in shells. Most of the shells had been fired from A and B turrets, as X turret was unable to bear for most of the action. In the action the right hand gun of A turret failed completely and the left and centre guns of B turret suffered intermittent faults.

The blast effects from RODNEY’s main armament caused the Douglas fir decking on the upper deck to be ripped up. Also the adoption of aluminium alloys for most of the minor ships fittings, such as kit lockers, mess racks, store cupboards and wash facilities caused all these fittings to be shaken up and some dislodged when the main armament was fired. Cast iron water mains were ruptured and in many instances broke, flooding compartments.

At 1015 hours according to the CinC’s Official Dispatch included on ADM 234/509: the BISMARCK was a wreck, without a gun firing, on fire fore and aft and wallowing more heavily every moment. Men could be seen jumping overboard, preferring death by drowning in the stormy sea to the appalling effects of our fire. I was confident that the BISMARCK, could never get back to harbour and that it was only a matter of hours before she would sink.
At 1021 hours KING GEORGE V fired her last salvo from her Y turret.
At this time BISMARCK was a burning hulk, but still afloat.

 

(As he withdrew the CinC made a signal to ships in company; Any ship with torpedoes to close the BISMARCK and torpedo her. The only ship in contact with torpedoes was the DORSETSHIRE and she had anticipated the CinC’s order and was closing BISMARCK to fire torpedoes.

At 1022 hours two 21 inch MK VII torpedoes fired by DORSETSHIRE from 3,280 yards hit BISMARCK’s starboard side.

At 1037 hours one 21 inch MK VII torpedoes fired by DORSETSHIRE from 2,400 yards hit BISMARCK’s port side, at the time BISMARCK had a heavy list to port.

At 1039 hours BISMARCK sank in approximate position 48-10N, 16-12W.

At 1041 hours DORSETSHIRE signalled the Admiralty that BSMARCK had sunk.

The DORSETSHIRE and MAORI moved in to pick up survivors. They sailed slowly into the mass of humanity in the water. Ropes were thrown over the side for the survivors to climb up, with the assistance of the British seamen. When the DORSETSHIRE had taken on board 86 German sailors, and the MAORI had picked up a further 25 sailors, there was a submarine alert. The DORSETSHIRE immediately got underway followed by MAORI, leaving hundreds of survivors behind, some still clinging to the ropes along her side before they dropped off.

30/5/41DORSETSHIRE landed her survivors at Newcastle and the MAORI landed hers at Greenock.

At 2059/27/5/41 U74 rescued 3 survivors.

29/5/41 the trawler SACHSENWAL which was a German weather ship rescued another 2 survivors.

Therefore out of BISMARCK’s total complement of 2221 men, there were 116 survivors)

__________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I have often wondered about  the decision to abandon the rescue of the German sailors from Bismark, would the U-boats really have fired on the ships rescuing their shipmates? Perhaps the Captains of the Dorsetshire & Maori were not willing to take the risk, it must have been heartbreaking for the British sailors having to leave the survivors at their moment of rescue and of cause worse for the German sailors being left behind.

Was it a political decision to abandon the striken sailors, revenge for the 1415 sailors lost when Hood blew up?

There is no glory in war for the ordinary man, most when it was all over, just wanted to forget about it.

                                                                                  Lance Horne

         

[forumaccount]

Anyone who thinks the Tirpitz will come now in august?

[Machine_Cookie]

Anyone who thinks the Tirpitz will come now in august?

 

Probably not, but i would love to be wrong

[MrEasyUK]

Bear in mind the Bismark was one ship and it took half of the British Navy - Home Fleet plus Mediterranean Fleet to sink it, at the time the Bismark was the ship to sink at all costs, it sunk HMS Hood in its first engagement, the Bismark was the ship that had to be sunk, the reason why is that it could sink anything in the British fleet.

 

The Bismark should not really be a tier 8

 

 

[MrEasyUK]

 

Yes. Jutland. WW1. Anything can be called Luck, and anything can be lucky. However, you seem to think that in a BB on BB engagement, a BB will explode fairly regularly....

Ships that went to Magazine explosions thanks to enemy action:

Invincible, Queen Mary, Indefatigable - Jutland 3

Hood 

Bretagne - (Sitting in harbour at mers-el-kebir)

This doesn't seem like BBs going up all the time ¬.¬

 

I would be interested where you got those figures from. Because in my books, the armour belts Hood and Prince of Wales can stand up to Bismarck's shells. Her guns are good, yes, but I doubt they are that good. 

 

Lutjens had the chance to try and kill the PoW, but you have to ask yourself, was it worth it? Why risk the ship? Prince of Wales may have been suffering teething problems, but she could still bite. Lutjens may have been too passive, but I can see why he decided not to pursue PoW, and try to sink her. And even then, there is no guarantee of sinking the PoW. 

 

What name calling: That 2nd post had no name calling in it. Completely unwarranted. 1st post I called you a fanboy. However looking back through this thread, it does become painfully obvious to me... Despite that most people disagree with you. And Bias? Yes, since I'm British, my affections lie with the RN, but the RN gets a lot of stick for some reason on these topics. Some of it is undeserved.

 

 

Possibly a pointless piece of information for you all.....

 

The reason the Royal Navy lost the ships we did at Jutland was down to a ridiculous breakdown of procedure plus the stupidity of a commander of cruisers positioning himself between the Grand Fleet and the German Navy.

 

It is worthy to note that every ship lost ( It could of easily been more ships lost) had a routine for storing rounds and cordite, so secure were the set procedures that a magazine exploding should not happen, the safety measures on a ship to avoid such a thing happen was vast at the time... secure elevators, blast doors, flooding magazines etc, But at the same time the Royal Navy did not want to engage at sea and run out of rounds so the Admiralty agreed to increase the rounds a ship could carry etc.

 

The next issue for example was HMS Invincible, it  had the fastest rate of fire in the Royal Navy at the time, something that was considered a must have on any Royal Navy ship for any engagement, each individual gun on these ships required up to 4 cordite charges (May be 3) to fire a single round, so to ensure speed when firing they would take the cordite charges out of the outer cases and stock pile them from position "A" in the magazine to the Gun Turret so they could increase the ships rate of fire and speed things up so not have to unpack the cordite charges etc, this meant a trail of Cordite from the Magazine to the turret was present, resulting in a powder trail from the turret to the magazine, meaning the ship was vulnerable if the turret was hit which is why we lost so many ships at Jutland.

 

The wrecks have been dived and the evidence proven, as there has been arguments as to why we lost so many ships for years, Sir John Jellicoe knew this but as the Royal Navy was in uproar he brushed it under the rug so to speak when he became first sea lord.

 

Reason why I am interested in The Battle of Jutland is because the German Fleet attacked the North East Coast of England prompting action, resulting in The Battle of Jutland, my family lived in the Hartlepool and there was as a young family killed called Dixon, oddly enough my surname is Dixon so you get the picture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KMS_Tirpitz]

 

Possibly a pointless piece of information for you all.....

 

The reason the Royal Navy lost the ships we did at Jutland was down to a ridiculous breakdown of procedure plus the stupidity of a commander of cruisers positioning himself between the Grand Fleet and the German Navy.

 

It is worthy to note that every ship lost ( It could of easily been more ships lost) had a routine for storing rounds and cordite, so secure were the set procedures that a magazine exploding should not happen, the safety measures on a ship to avoid such a thing happen was vast at the time... secure elevators, blast doors, flooding magazines etc, But at the same time the Royal Navy did not want to engage at sea and run out of rounds so the Admiralty agreed to increase the rounds a ship could carry etc.

 

The next issue for example was HMS Invincible, it  had the fastest rate of fire in the Royal Navy at the time, something that was considered a must have on any Royal Navy ship for any engagement, each individual gun on these ships required up to 4 cordite charges (May be 3) to fire a single round, so to ensure speed when firing they would take the cordite charges out of the outer cases and stock pile them from position "A" in the magazine to the Gun Turret so they could increase the ships rate of fire and speed things up so not have to unpack the cordite charges etc, this meant a trail of Cordite from the Magazine to the turret was present, resulting in a powder trail from the turret to the magazine, meaning the ship was vulnerable if the turret was hit which is why we lost so many ships at Jutland.

 

The wrecks have been dived and the evidence proven, as there has been arguments as to why we lost so many ships for years, Sir John Jellicoe knew this but as the Royal Navy was in uproar he brushed it under the rug so to speak when he became first sea lord.

 

Reason why I am interested in The Battle of Jutland is because the German Fleet attacked the North East Coast of England prompting action, resulting in The Battle of Jutland, my family lived in the Hartlepool and there was as a young family killed called Dixon, oddly enough my surname is Dixon so you get the picture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I heard this mentioned many times before, but regarding the evidence what was it? You mention the dives confirmed it, but how exactly? 

 

PS: Not saying it didn't happen, it's a very plausible theory infact, just wondering how it has been "proved".

[MrEasyUK]

On the dives they could see the tops of the turrets blown off due to an outward explosion or damaged with shell holes,  some of the turrets lay at the side of the ships so they could see the turret mechanisms along with the explosive damage and inside the ship with ROV's, The other thing is sailors of the day admitted to such activities, they also found cordite casings all over the ships from the turrets going as far down in to the magazines. They could look into the magazines and also the turrets, the evidence was quite conclusive, cordite casings was all over.

 

The armor of the ships was what it was, it was possible to hit the magazine but the odds on doing that were considered low...Ultimately at the outset of the battle there were Battle Cruisers broadsiding the German fleet, the issue they had with this is that in a battle line the RN battle cruisers where often targeting a single German ship which means that if two ships target the same ship they couldn't gauge the splashes or who's splash belonged to who so the German Navy stuck to single ships so they hit their targets first because they could gauge the splashes and then adjust for their next shot.

 

During this early engagement we lost valuable ships due to a lack of precision and the ability to gauge the shots before the Germans did so we took a real battering which brought about the shocking early losses which was a total surprise, the Grand fleet was miles behind the RN Battle Cruisers but they turned and head back towards our main fleet with the Germans following.

 

While this was happening the Grand Fleet (The main fleet of RN Dreadnoughts) where in a box formation and then in a daring attempt which could of been costly had it not worked ...formed a line broadside on laying and awaiting for the German fleet, this line was miles long.

 

The German fleet came in range and they bombarded the German fleet that approached, but again suddenly one of the best ships in the fleet went boom, something was wrong, they could not understand what was happening they lost one of their bigger ships just like the Battle Cruisers.

 

The story of the battle goes along the lines of the German Fleet retreating, then they come about to try and outflank the RN Fleet not realizing that the entire RN Grand Fleet was in a Battle line something like 8 or so miles long so again the RN lay in wait and then open fire again on the German Fleet, and again they get a battering but so did the Royal Navy.  We didn't win the battle outright we won what was a Navy Term of controlling the sea or something like that stopping the German Navy from coming out into the North Sea again.

 

Long story short they examined all the ships they could which was most of the lost ships, along with all evidence from the day and examined the ships in the dive, the experts all came to the same conclusion due to over arming the ships and the slack way in which cordite was stored and managed and then distributed.

 

Plenty of senior officers from the day all said their was something wrong with their ships and they needed this sorting, needless to say our hero's of Jutland became Sea Lords so they could not allow such controversy to break out after being promoted, this created controversy over time resulting in the dive and thirst for evidence..... its very believable

 

 

 

 

[KMS_Tirpitz]

Ah yes I know the whole story of the battle in detail, it was just how it was established that it was unsafe distribution cordite which resulted in the explosions as I was curious how they could determine it

 

[Hogwild_Gankhammer]

The Bismarck was a modified Battleshipdesign from 1918

 

it had rather small main Guns , 38 cm versus Yamatos 46cm or even Iowas 41cm

 

its famoues fight against the Hood, a Battlecruise build in 1920 designed in 1917, was dumb.

 

a Battlecruiser like the Hood should not have engaged a Battleship like the Bismarck.

 

especially scince the Hood was 20 years older.

 

and then the Bismarck got sunk.

 

i think if the Bismarck had meet the Iowa, or the Yamato, contemporaries, it would have been destroyed by both of these superior battleships.

 

the Bismarck was a pretty good Battleship, it just wasn t up to the top tier of Battleship design.

 

P.S. if germany had used the recources to build Bismarck and Tirpitz to build Aircraftcarriers, the battle of he Atlantic might have been diffrent. thank god Hitler liked BIG GUNS

 

Germany DID build an aircraft carrier.  Graf Zeppelin but as far as I know she never saw service.  She was taken by the Russians at the end of the war and sunk en route to Russia OR sunk on purpose, I don't know.  Her wreck was found by the Polish navy recently.