German Battleships and convoy hunting.

[Glider]

Our postings crossed but I would support Delcs comments.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

As I have been, he seems to be very knowledgeable about it.

[Udet]

Mr. Glider:

Thank you very much for your comments.

As I said three postings ago within this particular thread, naval matters are not my specialty, so I am not going to heat up here.

I find all this interesting and I want to learn a bit more naval stuff.

Regarding the engagement between Renown vs Scharnhorst-Gneisenau the outcome was more the consequence of Germany´s obssession about not having another one of the large vessels perhaps crippled or badly damaged in action, and not because the German twins could not punish Renown.


Glider, you touched a very sensitive point in your posting though: the famous British account of HMS Prince of Wales not being 100% battle-ready, and that some civilian workers from the builder were still on board...

jesus...do you detect how scandalous this can be Glider?

The Admiralty should have concealed that piece of information for it could lead many to think the guys of the Royal Navy could be very incompetent about directing the naval affairs of the empire.

So perhaps WWII marked the beginning of the end of a once proud, skilled, professional navy that used to be the most powerful fleet on the planet for such a long time? I do not have the elements to respond this, but I assume you do.

Instead of a futile justification to attempt explaining the fact HMS Prince of Wales got her ass badly kicked by Bismarck, these facts should be a scandal.

So Glider, if I am going to have a kick boxing fight, and have several fighters in my team, am I going to send one who is still recovering from a broken leg?

Am I going to have the doctor and therapist by the side of the ring yelling questions as to how is the broken leg feeling as the process of getting the living crap kicked out of him happens?

If I do, and when the guy returns from combat with his ass duly kicked, will that mean his enemy was not that good? Let me answer it for you: YOU WILL NEVE KNOW. He dealt with what he got sent against him.

Bismarck dealt with what the Royal Navy first sent against her, didn´t her?


I do agree with you once the combat is accepted anything can happen; Bismarck did not try to evade the combat against the two British battleships though; did the guys on board Bismarck know HMS Prince of Wales cuadruple turrest were crap?

So in the hypthetical scenario I suggested, although anything could happen, I believe Bismarck emerges as a winner, or at leat, in the most favorable of the conditions.

My comments, although irrelevant in the end for she was doomed, regarding the Bismarck capability to take brutal punishment during her final combat, without sinking or exploding, tells of the soundness of her construction.

I have not claimed her to be perfect for there were no perfect vessels.


Delcyros:

Thank you for you response. But still, the heavy units of the Royal Navy were not going to catch up with Bismarck, is that correct?

[Glider]

Udet. If I upset you then there was no intention to do so. There is no doubt that the Bismark and Prinz Eugen won the first battle, it would be stupid to pretend otherwise.
Also I wasn't trying to quote make a futile justification that the POW got her ass kicked'
There is no doubt that the POW broke off the engagement and she did this as to stay would have put her at grave risk. When she turned away the POW was down to one working Turret and her Bridge had received a direct hit wiping out almost everyone on it. She was in no condition to continue the action. She had been hit by three 15in shells and four 8in shells.
Its interesting that the POW and the Bismark hit each other three times.

However, there is also no doubt that the POW did have dockworkers on board and that her quad 14in Turrets were very unreliable. A problem that impacted most of the class for nearly the entire war. There is also no doubt, that she inflicted enough damage on the Bismark to force her to abandon her mission.
The Germans wouldn't have known about the gun problems there is no reason why she should have done and we wouldn't have been keen to tell the world about the problem.

As for the Renown vs Scharnhorst + Gneisenau.
The reason the Germans retreated wasn't because of the fear of damage. It was officially because they were carrying German soldiers for the invasion of Norway and the delivery of those soldiers was the primary objective.
The view in the RN was that if the roles had been reversed and the Renown been German we would have turned to fight.

Would we have done in real life? who knows, but the fact remains that you asked what would happen if ships met in open waters and there was an example.

I should remind you that I actually agreed with the important part of your first posting, that the Bismark was the best european BB around.

I also would like to repeat that there was and is, no intention to cause discord.

[Udet]

Mr. Glider:

Thank you very much for your comments again.

Please do not misunderstand the "flavor" of my comments. I am not upset, at all. Sorry, but sometimes I am just too lazy to type emoticons...

Quite the contrary, I enjoy reading your comments, for as I said, I am no expert when it comes to naval aspects of WWII. My knowledge on the matter could be qualified as barely above basic.

I agree HMS Prince of Wales caused damage enough to change the German plans for Bismarck as well. As you correctly said, when the battle begins between large surface vessels anything can happen.

Really Glider, I do think the British official story should have concealed the fact HMS Prince of Wales was not 100% ready for combat. Would you agree it was a very stupid thing to do?

I have heard some people talking about it, did the guys on board the Prince of Wales they were going to have a field day facing Bismarck?

Or were they overwhelmingly confident about some British naval superiority, that even with civilians workers on board trying to gear her up, and with cuadruple main turrets that were crap, they were going to defeat the German enemy?

It was an unconceivable fact to acknowledge from an armed branch deemed as "professional".

Although a fine opponent, I do believe HMS Prince of Wales was lucky to survive the engagement.


Glider, another question regarding the french Jean Bart:

Do you know if the french experienced any trouble with those cuadruple turrets?

If I recall correctly, when the Jean Bart entered combat against US Navy forces off Casablanca -tied to her dock-, she had only one turret installed.

Was that all the combat the Jean Bart had during the entire WWII?

Also if I recall correctly, the Richelieu never entered combat against naval forces during the war, is that about correct?

[Hunter368]

I just wanted to thank you all in this thread for all your comments. While I have made no comments of my own (not qualified to, lol) I find this thread very interesting. While I did know Bismark was a very good ship, I did not know it was arguably better than anyone else's in Europe during the entire war. Again thank you for this very interesting thread and arguments from both side of the coin.

[Glider]

Udet. The Jean Bart was never completed during the war. She was being built in St Nazaire but was moved to Casablanca before the Germans arrived. At this time she was far from complete but one turret was installed although she had no fire control equipment of any description. All the French could do was set up a manual system that took bearings from three different places and do the calculations to arrive at a firing solution.
When the US forces attacked she was moored at a quay and fought back as long as she could under what can only be described as impossible conditions. French sources admit that she was hit eight times by the USS Massachusetts and at least one torpedo from aircraft before fires forced her to cease firing.
In her incomplete state she was also missing most of her sophisticated damage control equipment and had to rely an the physical efforts of what damage control teams she had. As you may expect she didn't have a full crew which also didn't help.

You asked if the French had problems with their Quad 15in Turrets. I don't know the anwser to this but I suspect not. I say this as the French had already built two Battlecruisers the Dunkerque and the Stratsbourg with Quad 13in. With this experience behind them, I would have thought that they would have learnt some lessons as to what works and what doesn't.
I do believe that she had some problems with the Guns themselves not the Turrets

The Richleau was refitted in the USA in 1943 with modern AA weapons and to have three 15in guns replaced with ones taken from the Jean Bart. All I know is that these needed replacing for 'technical reasons' hence my previous comment re problems with the guns.

As for her war record. In July 1944, the Richleau joined the British Eastern Fleet taking part in bombardments and actions before returning to France before the end of 1944 before returning to the Pacific to take part in the campaign from April 1945 until the end.

Hope this helps

Hunter
I am sure that Udet as well as myself appreciate your comments. This is an aviation site and we have gone a little off track down the Naval route. Personally I was concerned that we may have lost the thread I thank you all for your indulgance

[delcyros]

I am going with you, Glider.
PoW, while beeing commisioned, did not completed her seatrials (alike Bismarck), when it left it´s harbour. The problems with it´s quadruple turret are partly engineering based (KGV also suffered over it´s whole service time from that) but mostly due to a lack of training and securing systems.
Nethertheless the ship did a good job.
Bismarck and Prinz Eugen did not break because they believed that CA were closing, not BB/BC.
The turret design of Richelieu is biased. There is a heavy armor plate dividing it into two twin fun units (in case of Strassbourg it indeed worked well, when it was hit, so only one half turret was knocked out). Another plus is it was the only heavy gun to be loaded at any angle (so it is equal in rate of fire at long ranges even to Bismarcks reputated 15"), and it´s ballistic performances are even better. I don´t know about original french shells, but it is clear that later in ww2 Richelieu benefitted from US made shells (rarely duds, very resistent against impact damage). Some aspects of it´s turret design are questionable: Why are the electric and hydraulic cables mounted on the back of the armor plates? Every non penetrating impact of any shell bigger than 8 inch would knock the complete turret out, no matter how thick the armor is or how long the distance, in case this plate is hitten. I personally find it also difficult that all main guns are orientated forward and all secondary rearward. (the third ship of this class: Gascogne, should be executed with one forward and one backward firing turret but France surrendered prior to this)
Beside of this it indeed is a reasonable contender and a very handsome ship. More fuel capacity, improved underwater protection (much better subdivision, void instead of filled cells) and a Gascogne- like layout would make the ship better than Bismarck, no doubt.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

I just wanted to thank you all in this thread for all your comments. While I have made no comments of my own (not qualified to, lol) I find this thread very interesting. While I did know Bismark was a very good ship, I did not know it was arguably better than anyone else's in Europe during the entire war. Again thank you for this very interesting thread and arguments from both side of the coin.

Im with you on this also. I am not all that knowledgable in navy matters. I really do like to read up and study on the Bismarck though, I was always fascinated with her Titanic type fate.

[Erich]

interesting I must say, all the hype on the Bismark and a ship that really was not able to prove itself. without starting a flame war it apepars through KM documentation that it's smaller sister the Prinz Eugen was able to deliver the killing blow on the Hood. Even though a grand ship with smaller large caliber weapons they were enough to do the damage and also be quite felt by the Soviets in and around the Baltic in 44 till wars end along with the smaller Z-ships

[Udet]

Mr. Delcyros:

When you say the internal design of the french main cuadruple turret worked well in the Strasbourg -saying that when it got hit only half the turret got knocked out- to what combat you be referring to?

The action against the British in Mers-el-Kebir?

Strasbourg, was the only large vessel anchored there that managed to escape -it was, with not doubt, a test of seamanship and guts: manouvering in the chaos of the small harbor, with the enemy fleet firing from the distance speaks a lot for itself- and if i recall correctly, the British scored no hits on her. Her twin, Dunkerque was heavily damaged and got beached.

So when was it that the design proved its worth? Just a question, I might be unaware of another combat where she got involved.

While theoretically interesting as a design, I have my doubts as to how it would actually work once put to test in real combat.

Putting an armor plate dividing the big turret into two sections... it seems highly unlikely that in the event of a heavy shell hitting the turret on any side only half turret would get knocked out.

A smaller shell hitting it, well, even without the internal armor plate fitted, any major turret would have no problem in resisting the impact and continue in operation.

Or say, that depending on the exact place and angle of the oncoming shell, at least the rotating mechanism of the turret would get thrashed.

[delcyros]

My mistake. It was Richelieu, not Strassbourg, which suffered main turret damage. It was hit by a 15 inch shell either from HMS Barham or HMS Resolution at Dakar which knocked her main gun #2 and #1 out of action. #3 and #4 remained intact (minor damages by shock effects, some injured crew members as well), so the subdivision of the quadruple turret is battle proofed.
It´s all a question at what impact angle the shell hits and what striking force it has (weight, speed, design of AP-cap). A 15" hit is anyway a heavy hit.
However, since the Richelieu has face hardened armor on it´s turret face (and sides), the effect is different:
A slow moving, heavy shell with soft cap will ricochet off(at high obliquities), break (at the holing limit) or make it´s way through (at direct impact angles). A faster, lighter AP shell (let´s take 8 inch) won´t make it through at most but close distances but it will plug out a lot of armor, which in most cases will knock the turret out of action (repairable), since the face hardened armor is more resistant but more brittle also than homogenoius.
Designs differ to counter these effects.
One of the reasons why Bismarck had so little turret armor is that design crews found out that a turret cannot be safed even by heavy armor at almost all distances (thanks to shock effects and damage caused by armor punched out) from 14" and heavier projectiles.
Take Bismarcks 15" for example: It will reach partly penetration (upper body at low obliquity) even at distances of 18000 yrds against 22 inch of face hardened armor! The non penetrating damage caused by this projectile weighting 3/4 of a ton, travelling at speeds between Mach 1.5 and Mach 4 will knock out a 22 inch covered turret even at 30000 yrds...
Realizing this they decided to protect against smaller, high velocity shells, like 8 inch even at 0 distance. However, in order to provide sufficient protection against heavier projectiles a second, very ductile layer of approx. 45-50 mm armor (US-"B" or Ww) would be neccessary behind a more thicker face hardened armor (around 20 inch and more). This was partly executed only in the Yamato turret design. It should be noted that such a turret would weight almost a destroyers full weight!
The US replaced face hardened with homogenoius armor on their turret mainly because of the worrisome scaling effects of their class"A" face ardened armor. This is very reasonable. The resistence of "B" is little less compared to face hardened but the good elongation qualities more than offsets this. The problem was to make homogenoius in such a thickness (20 inch +) without making it brittle (thus reducing the elongation advantage). I don´t believe that they succeeded in this, but there are no confirmations avaiable. Even with this in mind, The turret is only partly protected against heavy shells (against Richelieus 15"/50 at distances further away than 17.000yrds) and not protected against non penetrating hits (at any distance). With this in mind, the subdivision of the Dunkerque/Richelieu-class turrets should be considered as advanced.

[delcyros]

Just theoretically, the Prinz Eugen might have done the fatal hit on Hood. But this is very theoritcally.
Let´s assume it is a deck penetrating hit (as most scholars believe), the abilities to penetrate the deck (calculated with british homogenious armor) are the following at 16.000 yrds distance (around the distance where Hood suffered conflagration):

Bismarck:
15"/52: 2.2 inch at 1816 ft/sec.
5.9"/55: 1.3 inch at 1019 ft/sec.
4.1"/65: neglectable, the angle of fall would indicate no deck penetration

Prinz Eugen:
8"/60: 1.2 inch at 1551 ft/sec.
4.1"/65: neglectable, the angle of fall would indicate no deck penetration (deflected)

-surprise! The deck penetrating abilities of Bismarcks main and secondary guns are better than the CA´s main artillery (thanks to a very flat trajectory) The deck armor of Hood over aft magazine are 67mm + 51 mm weather deck + splinter deck (may have been hit also) 17mm.
With this in mind, there is no justification for the claim that Prinz Eugen did the fatal blow directly. A indirect may be caused by a fire set up by a 8 inch hit (which could in theory set off the secondary ammo stored there), which in the end led to the main ammo burning (unprobable because of the armor subdivision there, it must have been "open" in some kind).
However, let´s think it was a 15" hit - the deck armor penetration makes it improbable:
Penetarting the weatherdeck (projectile is losing windscreen and AP-cap, no nose damage, speed reduced to 1345 ft/sec., deflection down by 5.4 degrees), the projectile is getting weaker and would be rendered "ineffective" by reaching the armor deck (nose shattered, partly penetration). Could the non penetrating damage set off the powder?
Hard on the explainable limit, if you ask me.

Now let´s assume it was a belt penetrating hit (against british cementated, which is a little better than that used on Hood:

Bismarck (penetration must be "effective" with intact shellbody):
15"/52: 17.6 inch
5.9"/55: 2.2 inch
4.1"/65: 1.6 inch

Prinz Eugen:
8"/60: 7.5 inch
4.1"/65: 1.6 inch

The armor layout of Hood there is 305 mm main belt(slightly inclined) + 54mm (sloped 45 degrees)+ 19 mm, so the 15" of Bismarck is the only gun to place a projectile in this distance into Hoods vitals via belt (without any problems).
Lets assume a last possibility: The ship was doing a turn left , there is some probability that the ship rolls a bit in the sea.
I have a diving shell in mind (right side of Hood is briefly lifted due to rolling sea), the armor here is 76m plus 19mm, so under this circumstance, both, Bismarcks 15" and Prinz Eugen´s 8" could make it´s through. Anyway, a belt penetrating hit is more reasonable for the destruction of Hood than any thinkable deck penetration.

[Glider]

Whilst I agree with Delc that it is certain to have been a 15in that sank the Hood. I think everyone will recognise that the Prinz Eugen did remarkably well hitting the Hood hard as well as scoring damaging hits on the POW. It certainly shows up the performance of our CA's in the battle

[Erich]

Gentlemen though providing for a rather nice disortation nothing has been proven with regard of the P.E. destroying the Hood or not. Since we have no living eye witnesses to say a Bismarck big boy shell or one of smaller caliber hit the Hood to cause the fatal damage nothing can be said except conjecture. The P.E. remarked in their log-books, sadly nothing can be said for the Bismarks ill fated crew as to witness, they ahving their own problems during the battle obviously. We of course in this day and age could not admit the pride of the Royal Navy being sunk by a lesser craft so it would of had to been the Hood.