German Battleships and convoy hunting.

[Glider]

658 was a Fairmile D known as a Dog Boat in the RN, they were the largest and most heavily armed boats of their type in the world. They were slower than the traditional S Boat and RN MTB/MGB's but in normal sea conditions, compared to the 'Flat Calm' headline speeds, the difference wasn't that great.

[Erich]

Ich bin überlegen !

[syscom3]

How did the Scharnhorst (spelling?) compare? I know it was a pocket battleship, but overall, how did it perform? Weak points? Strong points?

[Glider]

The Scharnhorst wasn't a pocket battleship they had a main armament of 6 x 11in and were a lot smaller. She was a Battle Cruiser with 9 x 11in and that was one of her disadvantages although her sistership Gneisenau was being rearmed with 6 x 15in to replace the 11in guns. A change that was never finished.
They were fast, seaworthy, well armoured, matching a number of Battleships in that area.
Her secondary guns wasted a lot of weight in that she carried 12 x 5.9in (4x2, 4x1), as well as 14 x 4.1 AA. The single 5.9 in particular were an extravagent waste of armour and weight.
The Germans didn't have a 5in DP gun but she would probably have been better off carrying more 4.1 and light AA guns plus extra deck armour. It was already quite thick but extra protection against air attack never hurt in WW2.
As in a number of areas there was little wrong with the German vessels, it was the lack of leadership that caused difficulties.

Small change to my last posting. The RN had a small number of Steam Gun Boats (which were basically big MTB's) that were larger than the Dog boats but as I said were small in number.

[Udet]

Very interesting material from Delcyros.

While naval matters are not my specialty, and knowing the allies are full of ****, it ain´t surprising Bismarck eventually became another one of their post-war targets in another attempt to have her minimized as much as possible.


A question for you navy buffs:

What are your thoughts on the outcome of an engagement between Bismarck and the french Jean Bart?

I like the design of the Richelieu class battleships very much; what do you think about those large cuadruple turrets?

Was it wise to have the main guns located all in the forward section of the vessel (bow)?


If I recall correctly, the only combats Jean Bart ever had during the entire war happened while being tied to her dock -with only one of the cuadruple turrets installed- in Casablanca against ships of the US Navy.

Comments?

[syscom3]

French ships are famous for their sailing speed in reverse.

[Glider]

My money would be on the Bismark. The French tried to seperate the two turrets as much as possible to ensure that a hit on one wouldn't damage the other but for myself it feels to much like putting all your eggs in one basket.
When the Bismark was attacked by the Rodney, the first 16in hit knocked out both her forward turrets. Had that been the Richleau (completed sister ship to Jean Bart) it would have been game over.
That said it must be admitted that having the Richleau layout does give you more tactical options.
Its a close call, I went with the Bismark as I feel that its a better balanced design but at the end of the day its down to the training of the men and dumb luck as to what part of the ship is hit.
A lot of words are typed about penetration, MV, design of shells but luck comes into it, as in a Naval battle of any distance you try to hit the ship, where you hit it is in the lap of the gods. In the Battle of River Plate a practice 6in fired by mistake in the heat of the moment, ended up in the Graff Spree forward 11in Magazine.
You can make your own mind up if it was the British were lucky that it got so far, or the Germans that it wasn't a real shell.

[delcyros]

According to what I know about the Scharnhorst´s they were the most succesful single Kriegsmarine vessels. (Both ships destroyed 1 Carrier, 4 Destroyer, 16 merchants and three escorts) While classified as a BC they indeed represented a "anti Battlecruiser" in Fischer´s original conception (speed and firepower for protection). They had a 11 inch armement, which was excellent for it´s gunsize (range 42.000 yrds +, very high muzzle velocity, good deck penetration, good preciseness, cyclic rate of fire: 3.5), but inferior to contemporary gunsizes (except maybe Dunkerque-class) of any BB/BC.
Indeed, while most BB have a small immune zone against 15 inchers they have a very wide against the 11 inchers, and this is a disadvantage battling a BB.
Her protection was better than any other BC ever made (including Hood). Subdivision was excellent. Some says this qualifies it as a battleship. Her belt protection was a little better than those of the Bismarcks (350 mm KC vertical + 105 mm Wh at 45 degrees + 45 mm ww inclined) but without stronger upper belt (only 45 mm), her deck armor was inferior to that of Bismarck. This makes the ship even more immune to point blanc ranges of any thinkable gunsize (up to 20.1") but vulnarable at plunging fire even at medium ranges (vitals could be reached by british 15"/42 as soon as 17.000yrds but more reasonably at 19.000 yrds, what is in within the usual fighting distance). The extensive armor layout contributed a lot to the heavy displacement of the ship. While designed for 32.5 kts both ships recorded less top speed than estimated (Gneisenau 31.8 kts, Scharnhorst 31.6 kts at standart displacement), thanks to it´s higher executed displacement (Attention! The main belt begun at full displacement only 1.5 m above the waterline).
All I know underlines that both ships were very "wet" at heavy seas up to the "A" turret. A plus for the design is their large range, At 30 kts usual speed they could achieve ~4.300 nautic miles without refuel. This should play a role in the Atlantic while facing the slower & short legged but more powerful RN hunters. Actually, while not Fisher like, these BC were the only ones, which acted like a BC: They used their superior speed to engage inferior enemies (Glorious, Rawalpindi), dictate the range or disengage BB (Renown, Nelson) any time and strictly stayed out of the battle line (Scharnhorst also tried to disengae DoY but two full torpedo salvos from chasing DD forced her to slow down her speed). However, it´s design was a little flawed: Their protection was optimized for close ranges but they were no close range fighter´s like Bismarck but BC depending on speed and range so a better deck protection (even better than Bismarck) would be more reasonable for these ships, I think.
The Gneisenau refit begun in 1943 could have given the design a better performance at all: refit 9 11 incher by 6 15 inchers would give a better punch, replacing the secondary and tertiary artillery by a single dual purpose 128mm calibre (twin tureet C-42 design) would be better, too. The refit with Würzburg Riese Radar could give the ships a better air search capability and the elongation of the bow contributes a lot to additional lift and a better length-beam relation, thus making the ship more seaworthy and considerably faster with the same powerplant (32.5 kts would be achievable surely at standart displacement) or allowing a better main deck protection at 32 kts.

[delcyros]

While I agree that combined fleet is somehow imbalanced in the points given, possibly motivated by national pride, I have to admit that it is still reasonably sourced and from what I already read, the best.
I cannot agree that the "allies" generally downrate the Bismarck because it is an axis ship. That´s wrong. Have a look at Kbsimarck.com.
Actually it was to a high degree Nathan Okun and his comprehensive armor penetration analysis what lead to underestimate the Bismarck´s abilities to take punishment. His estimations are not reflected in the wreckages hull damages at all because it suffered from medium and close range hits.
The author of combined fleet just weights the strength´s of US ships more and reduces the strength´s of Bismarck (and to some degree KGV as well) a lot.

3.) underwater protection:

The point of compartimentation has two main sides:
1.) [included by the author] the defensive torpedo compartimentation in the armor zone
2.) [not included] the relation of protected to unprotected compartiments plus the total degree of subdivision (this is what makes a ship staying afloat while heavily beeing hitten) -of course this couldn´t be noticed by the author because it would led to a considerably reduce of the US ships points as we will see.

3.1.) system breadth:
I can agree with the exception that the breadth of the TDS of US ships is only 12% of the waterline that large. all other parts, namely at the magazines are much less wide (at turret "B" only 12 feet!)
3.2.) compartimentation:
error: Bismarck has not one void plus one liquid but three (!) orientated threedimansionally: void(from botom to 2/3) -liquid (from sloped 105 mm to 1/3 of bottom) - void (from bottom to 2/3). This clearly plays a role:
a torpedo impact would have no effect, since the gaz effects can be taken by the whole wideness of 18.04 feet (No-1 plus No-3, under No-2), this would allow explosive sizes up to 800 Kg to be contained without effect.
Richelieu: The inability to counterflood the ship because the void space is filled with water exhasutive material is a severe design flaw, as prooved by the few hits of Massachusetts against Jean Bart, this makes counterflooding of the vitals (!) necessary in case of a penetrating hit!
Yamato: The author dinged the Yamato for not using liquid loaded tanks outboard. Why should designers do so? A torpedo blast against a liquid filled tank would not be containable. The liquid is far less compressable than air (void) and thus would simply transfer the impact force more inboardly unreduced. Liquids contain fragmentation to a very high degree but not blast effects. It´s more wise to place the void tanks outboard (like Yamato and Bismarck, Richelieu as well as KGV and unlike Iowa, South Dakota, Littorio) to contain the blast effects or reduce them considerably and contain the following fragmentation by the liquid filled tanks more inboardly
3.3.) Armor belt:
Generally: The percentage of the waterline covered by the main belt or any substantial armor protection is neglected by the author. This is a clear mistake and benefits the US and japanese ships for their very small amount of total percentage covered by their AON armor sheme. As we know, Bismarck covered most of the waterline.
Iowa/SD: The main belt goes down to the bottom but is tapered from 2/3 down to the bottom 19mm and made of class "A" armor. This armor has very worse scaling effects and is inable to contain any larger blast or fragmentation but may even add further fragmentation with it´s own material. One result of Okun is that a single thick plate has much more resistence than three or four thinner plates (with a comparable or even higher added thickness), so this belt surely wouldn´t stop a diving shell nor would it stop the fragmentation of a torpedo blast. The 3-4 STS plates are more reasonable but the wideness of the compartements are restricted. At the magazines the TDS is not able to contain the blast effects of usual japanese or german torpedos nor those of the dangerous long lance.
Bismarck: Main armor is replaced by a inner mounted soft 45 mm Ww armor, which goes down to the bottom of the ship. This armor succesfully prevented diving projectiles (14inch from PoW) from penetrating as well as torpedo blast from reaching the vitals (according to wreckage analysis). The damages inflicted by the 14" hit were all of non penetrating nature. (author dinged Bismarck for a shallow belt)
3.4.) Total compartimentation[not included]:
This includes subdivision in watertight compartments total.
Yamato: 24/1400 total
Bismarck: 22/ 900 total
KGV: 22/820 total
Littorio: 21/ 745 total
Iowa: 20/ 780 total
South Dakota: 18/630 total
Richelieu: 16/530 total
3.5.) relation protected compartments to unprotected compartments[not included]: Protection is defined by 3.1.-3.3.
Yamato: 13/24
Bismarck: 17/22
KGV: 15/22
Littorio: 16/21
Iowa: 13/20
South Dakota: 11/18
Richelieu: 9/16

3.6.) Displacement: While not a "hard" factor, it is clear that larger ships can take more water than smaller ones and therefor should benfit.
1.) Yamato -72.000 t.
2.) Iowa -57.000 t.
3.) Bismarck - 51.000 t.
4.) Richelieu -48.000 t.
6.) Littorio-46.000 t.
5.) KGV- 42.000 t.
7.) South Dakota - 38.000 t.

[Udet]

More interesting stuff mr. Delcyros.

It is not daring to affirm Bismarck was the best overall battleship of Europe during the entire WWII.

The outcome of her first engagement: getting great pyrotecnics out of the pride (and flagship) of the Royal Navy, and heavily pounding and damaging another, tells of what Bismarck was made of, and speaks pretty much for itself.

Replace the RN flagship and the other vessel of that engagement with any other British battleship and you will see the outcome can be pretty much the same, if not worst for them Brits.

Who would you like to put instead of the two toys that enganged Bismarck?

Pick two of the following from the vintage battleship menu of the Royal Navy:

Valiant, Ramillies, Malaya, Queen Elizabeth, Warspite...all very old toys, inferior to Bismarck. There could only be two who could be somewhat more troublesome: Nelson and Rodney, with their three triple 16in. turrets, not as old as those first mentioned, but quite older when compared to Bismarck, and more importantly: significantly slower than the German machine. There is another one, the twin of the pounded Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, why would she be better than her twin was against Lütjenz battleship?

Bismarck would outmanouver and outspeed the Rodney-Nelson couple in the same engagement, and the outcome could be somewhat similar. Or at least, both British battleships end the battle heavily damaged with lots of dead and wounded inside.

Or I would put it in an hypothetical scenario for you:

What would have happened to ANY of the British battleships in May 1941, if it had been caught ALONE CRIPPLED in the opean seas, against Bismarck, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau?

Let me tell you what would have happened: she would have lasted 80% less time than Bismarck effectively did when it got pounded, with perhaps a fireball similar to that of the Hood, when the heavy shells of Bismarck reached her intestines.

Of course the allies move ahead with their stuff: "yeah...but also critical weaknesses of the German vessel rose to the surface during her first engagement..."

A famous Prince of Wales´shell whose effect I do not recall in due accuracy; it was either the shell isolated a critical amount of fuel or caused leakings, therefore a same outcome: inability to use all the fuel.

If I recall correctly none of the mighty British battleships was ever going to catch up with Bismarck, for the simple reason they were all slower. It was not until getting crippled by the Swordfish torpedo hit, she was doomed. So the effect of that very famous British shell was overinflated?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would not go as far as to say the Bismark was the best Battleship of the war. I would say she was one of the best all around Battleships. She was great in just about all areas. I will go however to say that just because she did that to the Hood on one day, does not mean that any other British Vessel would not do the same.

I will however go as far as saying that she did outclass a good size of the Royal Navy's Battlehsips do to the fact that many of her Battleships were still WW1 era or 1920's technology.

In the end though, due to Aircraft the Bismarck was doomed anyhow.

[Udet]

DerAdler:

If you read my posting again, you will notice I said "best overall battleship of Europe during the entire WWII". (Second line of the posting)

Of europe, and not of the entire war, although it is one of the greatest of the entire war for sure.

[delcyros]

Bismarck got 3 14 inch hits from PoW. All three hit areas for the ships later yourney important:
*1: A main belt penetrating dud hit the bow region just outside the citadell (where the main belt was reduced to 50 mm Wh) and holed the hull slightly over water (but inside the bowwavezone). It destroyed some four fuel cells and the flooding caused by the shell prevented reaching some 1000 t of fuel in the bow. Furtherly, the bow list by taking water reduced the top speed a little (to around 29 kts).
*2: Another hit stroke the catapult but wasn´t detected prior to the attempts to bring back the war diary of the ship. It prevented the use of airplanes.
*3: The most often cited diving shell hit the ship under its main belt. The shell (losing windscreen and AP-cap) went throught liquid cell2 and void cell3 and was finally stopped by the 45 mm torpedo bulkhead. Nethertheless the fragmentation of this non penetrating hit caused some flooding in the electric turbine room behind which led to it´s controlled closing until minor repairs could be executed. The other turbine room provided still more than enough power for all devices of Bismarck.

In it´s time it was maybe the best BB (May 1941), but there are lot´s of contenders: The RN had the excellent "Jonny come late" Vanguard class. The french Richelieu would be a dangerous foe. And as pointed out above by Glider, luck plays a role. A single hit may cause catastrophic damage on any ship. Had the Hood not suffered conflagration that soon, I expect the outcome of the battle would have been different. The odds were hard against the KM. The RN should have made better use of Norfolk and Suffolk

[Glider]

Udet
I agree that the Bismark was probably the best all round BB in Europe, but not by that much.
The rest of your posting is more than a little off the mark. The Prince of Wales was sent straight out into action before she had shaken down and she even had some builders on board when she sailed to try to sort out some of the inevitable problems you get on any new ship of that size and complexity. The main problem with the POW was her quad 14in Turrets that were very unreliable. For a good portion of the battle she was only firing 6 gun broadsides and at times only 2. With this in mind, she did well to do what she needed to do, which was to stop the Bismark being able to continue with her mission. Her hit did contaminate a lot of the Bismarks oil forcing a return but the Bismark was also flooded in the bow which slowed her to a small extent.

Taking up your challenge I would suggest that any two of the following Nelson, Rodney, any worked up KGV class BB, Warspite, Queen Elizabeth, Valient would have been able to take on the Bismark. A lot of your argument is based on the ability of the Bismark to out manouver the British ships but that only really helps if you are trying to run away. If you want to fight then that evens things up. What matters then, is can they hit you when you can hit them. I chose the above ships as they are all modernised with Modern fire control and more importantly had the elevation of their guns increased to 30 degrees giving them a range in excess of 30,000 yards.
The Bismark may have a theoretical range of 40,000 ish yards but you would never hit anything. I think I am right in saying that the longest range hit by any BB of any side in any battle in the war was 27,000 yards, so a 30,000yd range would be plenty. In case your interested, the hit was made by the Warspite. In addition, you should remember that the first 16in hit on the Bismark in the final battle knocked out both her forward turrets Don't underestimate the older battleships.

One to one the Bismark would have a number of advantages but two to one, I don't think so.

Finally, off Norway both the Schornhorst and the Gneisenau met the Renown in the open sea with no aircraft around. The action took place in fog at short range and the result was no damage to the Renown, hits on both the German ships and I believe the Gneisenau suffered serious damage to her rear turret, that I would need to check.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Udet

DerAdler:

If you read my posting again, you will notice I said "best overall battleship of Europe during the entire WWII". (Second line of the posting)

Of europe, and not of the entire war, although it is one of the greatest of the entire war for sure.

I was making a General statement, not directed at your post directly.