German Battleships and convoy hunting.

[hartmann]

I would also like to point out to you that the USS Washington had no problem with accuracy with its triple turret design while slugging it out with the Kirishima.

The Kirishima was hit and disabled by only 9 hits of 16 inches and some 40 of 5 inches (as pointed by Delcyros, this ship was a battlecruiser of WWI era, very unprotected with only 203 mm of vertical armour) even when the Washington fired some 75 projectiles of 16 inches and 107 of 5 inches at ranges over 9000-7500 yards. This is a poor statistic record giving the short distances of the engagement. In other state, the British ships made half salvos to prevent dispersion problems when they fired multiple guns turrets, so I suppose that they knew very well these problems of muzzle blast and accuracy (and USA battleships tended to make the same thing, so, the problem existed, even not been very important). Best regards

[syscom3]

Thats good accuracy considering both ships were maneuvering radically.

[hartmann]

Well, depend on how to see it. The Kirishima was attacked by surprise because it was firing to the S. Dakota, and in the recors dof the combat there is no mention about evasive actions regarding the Kirishima (in fact it seems that it was catched as a sitting duck, and didn´t manoeuvred). You can se it in:
http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/battlesh/bb56.htm
Best regards and happay new year.

[delcyros]

I understand gun preciseness as the ability to repeat hits, e.g. the distance the second salvo is landing in comparison to the first one: the less the distance is, the more precise the guns are (under same circumstances).
At 8.000 yrds you may aim subtargets like turrets, conning tower and so on. At very long distances the gun preciseness is becoming even more important.
Vanguard topped Iowa anytime and I suspect that Bismarck wouldn´t do worser.
At Guadacanal we should keep in mind that the low trajectory impacts (almost exclusively belt penetration and superstrukture hits) would leave two possibilities:
1.) The Krishima blewes up due to hit in magazines or bowlers
(South Dakota´main belt cannot be pierced by the japanese 14"/45 ap shell unless SD is in less than 6.400 yrds distance)
2.) The Krishima is wrecked in the way the Bismarck was and therefore could rack up high hit scores and still afloat.
(unlike Bismarck, Krishima has no comparable vital protection and will take water as it historically did, so the ship could be sunken from this distance)
So it isn´t surprising that Krishima got so much hits and still afloat. It´s surprising that it did not blew up!
Just think of how Bismarck would have done here! Her radar directed guns could critically hit SD and W at any distance while her own vitals cannot be reached by any of both from any distance!
The only probable encounter between a fast US BB (Washington) and Tirpitz in 1942 did not happened because Washington was ordered to return immideatly in the moment Tirpitz left it´s harbour in Norway...Considering both designs and the contemporary firecontroll tech in 1942 I suspect that´s like a Tiger (Tirpitz) vs Sherman (Washington).

[Glider]

Hartman. In my posting I was explaining that it was standard practicve in the RN to fire half broadsides to assist with ranging. I WAS NOT SAYING that it had anything to do with blast and dispertion of shells.
In any firearm be it a 16in gun or a rifle, if properly designed, the shell or bullet is out of the barrel with the blast behind it. So if you are firing two or three shells at the same time, the shells are on the way to the target before the blast will reach the other barrels in the turret.

The only part of your posting that I disagree with are the plunging fire hits at long range being a fluke. It is harder to hit certainly but the Sharnhorst was hit a number of times in bad weather at long range by the British using plunging fire. If it had been a fluke only one or maybe two hits would have been achieved.

There is little doubt though, that had the USN been facing the Bismark and Tirpitz, instead of obsolete WW1 Battle Cruisers, the outcome could easily have been very different.

[syscom3]

No. Carolina class vs Bismark, would be a draw, perhaps slight edge to Bismark, depending on how soon the US ship could begin firing. Close in fight would be advantage Bismark.

South Dakota class vs Bismark would be a slight edge to the S Dakota

Iowa class vs Bismark would clearly be the Iowa.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Heres my question for you syscom. You keep arguing about the Bismark's vitals being reached by shells. It is proven that no shell from the some 5000 shells that hit her penetrated her hull. Thats good protection to me.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Here is an interview with a surviving crewmember Bruno Rzonca of the Bismark. All of this is found at the Official website of the Bismark: http://www.kbismarck.com

Bruno Rzonca passed away on 23 July 2004


Interviewer: Were you looking at the Hood at the time she blew up? Did you see the Hood blow up with your own eyes?

Bruno: No, but I did get reports from those who did see the Hood go down with field glasses.

Bruno: Later on the same evening [the 24th] we had a torpedo fly attack. They dropped 19 torpedoes. We zig-zaged them all out except one. One hit us right under the starboard side, on the right side, a little bit below my station. I was sitting on a tool box and from the pressure I got up. Then we checked it out and alarm came from the boiler room; we had to shut it off because the fire came back out. But 10 minutes later we checked it out again and nothing happened, it was just from the air pressure. We had our first casualty. It was in the rank of a sergeant; he was standing there on the railing where the torpedo struck, and from the air pressure he was flung over to the other side on the railing and broke his neck.

Interviewer: How was the armour on the hull of the ship?

Bruno: The biggest part of the armour was 15 inches. No torpedo came through the whole day.

Interviewer: What kind of steel was that?

Bruno: I don’t know.

Interviewer: Nickel-chromium steel?

Bruno: Yeah, something like that.

Interviewer: 15 inches?

Bruno: 15 inches on the thickest part. Over the machinery there were even two [decks?] of them, 8 inches. Not one shell came through the machinery.

And about the ship was scuttled:

Interviewer: What happened during the final battle?

Bruno: During the final battle I stayed at my station to the end. Then I heard the command to abandon ship on the intercom. We knew we had half an hour to get off the ship once that order was given as all internal doors were opened. They opened the bottom valves first in the boiler and turbine room and blew it up so the water came in.

Interviewer: Did you recognize the voice on the intercom?

Bruno: No.

Interviewer: Were you afraid?

Bruno: Very afraid. When the shooting started a big shell came right into me, on the left [port] side. I used to change shifts with my comrade Rudi Römer. I had just talked to him five minutes before and then he disappeared. I thought he died.

So, the last order came through, abandon ship and leave the doors open. When the skipper [Lindemann] gave the order to abandon the ship, we looked for an exit. I was looking around and saw men sitting on a bench and I asked: “don’t you want to save yourselves?” they said: “There is no ship coming, the water is too cold, the waves too high, we are going down with the ship.” A little bit further there was a wounded guy, he lost his heels I said: “come on I am going to help you out first and then find me an exit” he replied: “leave me alone and don’t step on my feet, I going down with the ship.” I couldn’t believe that. A little later we found a stairway.

When I came out I couldn’t believe it. The British were still shooting, and we looked for cover behind one of the 6-inch turrets. Bodies were piled around the turrets, they were all dead. The whole deck was full of blood and body parts. There were a couple of guys sitting there and said: “help me to get in the water, we can’t walk anymore” so we help them out into the water. Now the ship started turning over more and more to the left [port] side and I stayed on the starboard side. I took off my heavy leather suit and jumped into the water. I thought this should be the end. I was only 23 years old starting living, I was engaged, and there was no chance to save myself. You just have to jump into the water and swim as long as you can. That’s what I did. It was at least 50 or more feet to jump into the water. I was 100 feet away when the ship started to turn over to the left side all the way, and then a couple of guys that didn’t went over on time, jumped and slided down the hull [starboard] side until they hit the stabilizer [bilge trace] and they never came out again. They drownned. Then, we had to swim for almost an hour, the water was 15º C. and the waves 30 feet high.

Interviewer: You know Bruno, a lot of people think the ship was sunk. Was it scuttled?

Bruno: Otherwise I wouldn’t be alive. I was there to the last moment you know, and even so when I was swimming in the water, I was 100 feet away there was not a hole in the hull from all the torpedoes. They shot 71 torpedoes and 12 hits. Not one came through. Dorsetshire shot the torpedoes during the last part I was on the ship and I didn’t notice these torpedoes.

Interviewer: How many guys were in the water?

Bruno: I would say about 1,000. Half the crew were already dead from the shooting.

To verify this in the documetaries by Robert Ballard and James Camerson they proved that not a single shot went through the hull of the Bismark.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i'll wager that still wont be enough for sys, was very interesting reading though...........

[Nonskimmer]

Indeed it was. Good link too.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

i'll wager that still wont be enough for sys, was very interesting reading though...........

Ofcourse not because in a Sim it happened differently.

[delcyros]

Sorry Glider, I mentioned Scharnhorst vs Glorious at 27.000 yrds as a fluke, not the battle against DoY.
Syscom, why do you think so? SD was inferior to Bismarck in terms of firepower, armor protection of her vitals, speed, underwater protection and up to 1943 (introduction of SK-2 Radar) also in firecontroll.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Ofcourse not because in a Sim it happened differently.

[syscom3]

From longer ranges, the shells would be coming in at higher angles, and thats where the weak link in the Bismarks armour is. From closer ranges, the flatter trajectory of the shells would be stopped by the main armour belt.

For the SD, Bismark was superior in speed. The US had the advantage of the longer range and higher angles the guns could fire at. The armour protection was superior at longer range and equal to the Bismark for the middle ranges. Im still reading in detail the armour protection for shorter ranges.

The US fire control was superior to the Bismark.

Attached is an interesting pix taken of the SD at the battle of the Santa Cruz islands. The Japanese plane had already dropped its torpedo (probably at the USS Hornet several miles away) and the SD was in its path on the way "out".

[Gnomey]

Good stuff Alder, interesting. I watched the Robert Ballard documentary (at some point) on the Bismark and it to was really interesting to see that no torpedoes had penetrated the hull. It was still disabled by an a biplane though...