Best World war two warships?

Soren · 08-29-2006, 05:06 PM

Allot of the survivors of the Bismarck claim they sunk her themselves with explosives, and AFAIK this has been confirmed by underwater investigations. However lets face it, she was done for, and although it might have been the explosives which sank her, she was already put permanently out of action by the British warships long before that decision was ever made.

And about the hull of the Bismarck, although I'm not 100% sure about this, I seem to remember that the upper bow hull had been completely penetrated by a British 15" shell which even went out the other side without exploding. - The British throughout WW2 had problems with fuzes which later caused them to abandon the use of them completely in armor piercing rounds. The Germans on the other hand had great succes with fuzes in AP shells (As the HMS Hood testifies), and therefore stuck with it in their AP designs, improving them over the years.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-29-2006, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timshatz

Adler, I think these guys are on it with this one. The Bismark did take at least one shot from the POW. Went through the forward part of the ship and caused an oil leak. Also shipped water because of it. Better question would be did that hit go through the armour or did it go through an unarmoured part.

No where did I ever say that the Bismarck did not take any shells. She took many many shells. In fact her whole superstructure and turrets and everything above the waterline was complete destroyed by shells.

The oil leak that you are talking about was caused by the torpedos from the Swordfish which shipped water into the ship.

Soren · 08-29-2006, 05:19 PM

Here we go..

"Starboard side bow of the Bismarck. The false wave can be seen on the side of the hull. The hole that can be seen in the hull and false wave is where the shell from Prince of Wales went out after having entered the hull from the port side. The shell went right thought the ship. Some sediment can be seen on the main deck."

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-29-2006, 05:25 PM

Yes but that was above the waterline in an unarmoured section. No shells penetrated the Bismarcks armour belt.

redcoat · 08-29-2006, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Yes but that was above the waterline in an unarmoured section. No shells penetrated the Bismarcks armour belt.

Are you under the assumption that the Bismarcks hull was totally armoured ?

Henk · 08-29-2006, 05:38 PM

The crew, the German crew hated the word Hood because it was used in their training and everytime they said what if you made that misstake while fighting the Hood, so when they went up against her they did their best.

Henk · 08-29-2006, 05:53 PM

Look at the photo of the Bismarck after the battle and you will see how much her bow sinks away in the water. Let me show it again for you guys.

and a 3D drawing of the Bismarck.

and now the picture of the wreck.

Soren · 08-29-2006, 06:26 PM

Adler has a good point, as looking at the armour layout of the Bismarck it is clear that the shell from Prince of Wales hit a section of just 60mm in thickness or less, and it was above the waterline.

Bismarck armour layout:

Henk · 08-29-2006, 06:31 PM

Yes, but that is the exit point/hole of the shell that hit the Bismarck from the PoW.

Soren · 08-29-2006, 06:45 PM

As explained earlier: "Starboard side bow of the Bismarck. The false wave can be seen on the side of the hull. The hole that can be seen in the hull and false wave is where the shell from Prince of Wales went out after having entered the hull from the port side. The shell went right through the ship. Some sediment can be seen on the main deck."