RohmMohc

The Sinking of the German Battleship Bismarck

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Ghost_Rider12 said:

 

Indeed the fact is the Bismarck sunk . Some people however refuse to believe that the RN dealt the fatal blows that caused her to start to sink it is well documented that she was already sinking slowly when she was scuttled all her crew did was to speed up the rate at which she was sinking. As for why they decided to scuttle her I don't know maybe they thought the RN would try to capture her but if that was the case they would not have pounded her into a burning wreck.

problem is that "slow sink" wasn't exactly lethal, "no underwater penetrations of the ship's fully armored citadel", citadel is designed also to keep ship on water in case all other compartments are flooded and crew flooded citadel.

RN delivered disabling strikes, without captain scuttling order, RN would need to waste much more ammo.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

problem is that "slow sink" wasn't exactly lethal, "no underwater penetrations of the ship's fully armored citadel", citadel is designed also to keep ship on water in case all other compartments are flooded and crew flooded citadel.

RN delivered disabling strikes, without captain scuttling order, RN would need to waste much more ammo.

Well...no exactly. It was a sitting duck for swordfish bombers and after 1 or 2 passes it would sunk completely.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JohnGR said:

Well...no exactly. It was a sitting duck for swordfish bombers and after 1 or 2 passes it would sunk completely.

it wasn't that they failed and failed to hit in circling duck.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnGR said:

Well...no exactly. It was a sitting duck for swordfish bombers and after 1 or 2 passes it would sunk completely.

Swordifish torpedo was useless against bismarck TDS, one hit in the central main belt did absolitely nothing to the ship..

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bellezza03 said:

Swordifish torpedo was useless against bismarck TDS, one hit in the central main belt did absolitely nothing to the ship..

 

But one hit on its rudder system was enough to slow it down for further punishment so your statement is flawed.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigBawsBarabus said:

But one hit on its rudder system was enough to slow it down for further punishment so your statement is flawed.

 

 

yea so in short an old biplane started the chain of events that sent the Bismarck to her grave :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BigBawsBarabus said:

But one hit on its rudder system was enough to slow it down for further punishment so your statement is flawed.

 

on the other hand... that hit was plain luck...just as much as it would plain luck be in war thunder to hit a 600 km/h plane at 500 meters (not directly flying up to you) wiht the main gun of an Achilles... or to reliably get 5 detonations in one match in WoWS...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

on the other hand... that hit was plain luck...just as much as it would plain luck be in war thunder to hit a 600 km/h plane at 500 meters (not directly flying up to you) wiht the main gun of an Achilles... or to reliably get 5 detonations in one match in WoWS...

 

or as much luck as the Bismarck had when it hit the Hood's magazine.........

 

In warfare sometimes you get lucky,

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

on the other hand... that hit was plain luck...just as much as it would plain luck be in war thunder to hit a 600 km/h plane at 500 meters (not directly flying up to you) wiht the main gun of an Achilles... or to reliably get 5 detonations in one match in WoWS...

The pilot pressed home his attack and achieved his objective, Im sure there was a lot of luck involved as there was with any attacks by any servicemen who carried out their duties whilst on a mission?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BigBawsBarabus said:

But one hit on its rudder system was enough to slow it down for further punishment so your statement is flawed.

 

No, it yours. TDS covers only the citadel zone. Rudder and such are not protected by heavy armor and TDS in the all or nothing scheme. So if the swordfish had to sunk the bismarck,  no they simply couldn t the warhead was not strong enaught. Yea they could flood some zones not covered by the TDS but that it. 170 kg of TNT explosive are not going to do any significant damage in the heavy armoured zones. Americans had to use 19 mk13 torpedoes that had 270 kg of torpex ( 1.6 X the TNT) to pierce the Musashi TDS to sunk her ( and still she remained afloat for 3 hours after everything finished thanks to the 1k watertight compartments, and the fact that the Musashi needed to have onboard 56000 tons of water...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bellezza03 said:

No, it yours. TDS covers only the citadel zone. Rudder and such are not protected by heavy armor and TDS in the all or nothing scheme. So if the swordfish had to sunk the bismarck,  no they simply couldn t the warhead was not strong enaught. Yea they could flood some zones not covered by the TDS but that it. 170 kg of TNT explosive are not going to do any significant damage in the heavy armoured zones. Americans had to use 19 mk13 torpedoes that had 270 kg of torpex ( 1.6 X the TNT) to pierce the Musashi TDS to sunk her ( and still she remained afloat for 3 hours after everything finished thanks to the 1k watertight compartments, and the fact that the Musashi needed to have onboard 56000 tons of water...)

Something i found:  

The most recent survey of Bismarcks wreck showed only two complete penetrations in the lower 320 mm main belt, both on the starboard side. These penetrations must be credited to Rodneys 40.6 cm guns since theKing George V always kept herself on Bismarcks portside throughout the battle. 

Lets suppose the captain didnt give the scuttling order. What would have happened?

Keep in mind that some compartments in bismark had already filled with water. 

1) Swordfish torpedo bombers return for rearmament at HMS Victorious. an additional force of 10planes joins the group raising the number up to 25 planes(iirc 15 swordfish were involved). But the number is "flexible". Due to the state of bismark, the sworfish bombers manage to score many hits with their torpedoes. Indeed the Mk XII torpedo wasnt sufficient, but many of them wpuld eventually get the job done. 

2) Bismark cant fight back, so Rodney and King George V get closer to Bismark whereas the 40.6cm guns on the Rodney can efficiently penetrate the starboard of the Bismark. The 360mm Mk VII guns on the King George V can also deal with the bismark at close range. After continuous firing from both ships, bismark simply sunks. 

End of story.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15.8.2016 at 4:59 PM, JohnGR said:

Something i found:  

The most recent survey of Bismarcks wreck showed only two complete penetrations in the lower 320 mm main belt, both on the starboard side. These penetrations must be credited to Rodneys 40.6 cm guns since theKing George V always kept herself on Bismarcks portside throughout the battle. 

Lets suppose the captain didnt give the scuttling order. What would have happened?

Keep in mind that some compartments in bismark had already filled with water. 

1) Swordfish torpedo bombers return for rearmament at HMS Victorious. an additional force of 10planes joins the group raising the number up to 25 planes(iirc 15 swordfish were involved). But the number is "flexible". Due to the state of bismark, the sworfish bombers manage to score many hits with their torpedoes. Indeed the Mk XII torpedo wasnt sufficient, but many of them wpuld eventually get the job done. 

2) Bismark cant fight back, so Rodney and King George V get closer to Bismark whereas the 40.6cm guns on the Rodney can efficiently penetrate the starboard of the Bismark. The 360mm Mk VII guns on the King George V can also deal with the bismark at close range. After continuous firing from both ships, bismark simply sunks. 

End of story.

 

Yes, and it was scuttled by the crew before that happened :D

Thats how the story actually went.

 

I can do a make-believe story too:

What if before the Bismarck was scuttled, all RN forces retreated? Scuttling order could have been taken back and the Bismarck may have beeen towed to a port for repairs (or scrapping).

 

There also was a pretty good reason why the Bismarck was scuttled: Sailors on the Bismarck tried to communicate with the RN ships via signals, but the RN officers did not want to hear a word of it and would continue fire. Scuttling, and thus abandoning the ship, allowed for a retreat in order, more likely to save sailors lifes than waiting for the RN mercy or for them to finally score a deadly blow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stahlvormund101 said:

Yes, and it was scuttled by the crew before that happened :D

Thats how the story actually went.

 

I can do a make-believe story too:

What if before the Bismarck was scuttled, all RN forces retreated? Scuttling order could have been taken back and the Bismarck may have beeen towed to a port for repairs (or scrapping).

 

There also was a pretty good reason why the Bismarck was scuttled: Sailors on the Bismarck tried to communicate with the RN ships via signals, but the RN officers did not want to hear a word of it and would continue fire. Scuttling, and thus abandoning the ship, allowed for a retreat in order, more likely to save sailors lifes than waiting for the RN mercy or for them to finally score a deadly blow.

The diference is that i described a very possible senario of what would have happened if the order wasnt given. 

I think that we can say that RN sunk the Bismark. Why? Read my previous comments.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JohnGR said:

The diference is that i described a very possible senario of what would have happened if the order wasnt given. 

I think that we can say that RN sunk the Bismark. Why? Read my previous comments.

The RN sunk the Bismarck, but the Bismarck was sunk by its crew. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stahlvormund101 said:

The RN sunk the Bismarck, but the Bismarck was sunk by its crew. ;)

Yeah ok whatever. If you actually read my comments this wasnt what i said. But anyway, believe whatever u want, i dont care.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JohnGR said:

Yeah ok whatever. If you actually read my comments this wasnt what i said. But anyway, believe whatever u want, i dont care.

You dont get what I mean apparently:

 

The Bismarck was sunk by its crew, but the circumstances to make this a necessity were brought upon them by the RN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stahlvormund101 said:

You dont get what I mean apparently:

 

The Bismarck was sunk by its crew, but the circumstances to make this a necessity were brought upon them by the RN.

 

So can we say that the Bismarck's fate was pretty much assisted suicide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nope said:

 

So can we say that the Bismarck's fate was pretty much assisted suicide?

I'd say extortion.

 

"Surrender, or we shoot what survivors you have left until all of your ship is gone."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stahlvormund101 said:

I'd say extortion.

 

"Surrender, or we shoot what survivors you have left until all of your ship is gone."

 

Well, at least the Bismarck went down with dignity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nope said:

 

Well, at least the Bismarck went down with dignity.

Meh, just a tiny bit better than being tickled to death by the RN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be some problem over British heavy naval guns, based on admiralty reports and apparent damage caused.

From what I can remember Britain only had 1 new type of heavy gun that being the 14"/45 that was implemented based on treaty limits. According to this table: http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_index.htm 

the gun was quite comparable to French, German and Italian more traditional 15" guns. The British did have their own 15" guns from the ww1 the 15"/42 cal being the first of its type in the world. The British admorality had also planned and created rather effective  MK II 15"/45 and MK II 16"/45 guns for the planned KGV class. At first the plans were to arm the ships with 16" guns like the south dokota, but then the expected treaty limits didn't happen and the government did want to spend. 

 

People are also quick to doubt the MK I 16"/45 cal guns, these were infact decent guns with reasonable armour penertration. The only problem was their short barrel life and power that broke windows and that was not economicall for the fleet. As for planned British ships the G3 and N3 class designed and laid down after ww1 made the laid down Lexington class BCs and old South dokota class BBs of america look terrible. The British went as far as to develop a 18" gun for testing it shot a heavier projectile than the IJNs 18.1" guns. It was mounted on the light battlecruiser glorious. 

 

All in all, I conclude that British guns were infact upto scratch, how ever the quality of amunition was much worse. Although according to these tables on http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Penetration_index.htm the British steel armour appears to be the hardest for guns to pen.

Edited by Skiny105
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The British might not have the competence to sink a modern battleship before it scuttles itself. But neither the Italians nor the Germans have competence to shoot down obsolete swordfish Bieplanes doing under 200km/ph, probably more casualties to swordfish Bieplanes last to crash landing than axis AAA. Now that's how to troll not by scuttling a extensively damaged vessel but by crippling or sinking a nations best ship with an obsolete string bag because the enemy AAA couldn't hit you...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The British wouldn't have closed to use BB guns - they know that above water hits wouldn't sink anything short of a magazine explosion.  They would have done exactly what they did do - send in cruisers to torpedo it.

 

Even if the torpedoes didn't penetrate the belt several underwater hits might well have caused enough deformation of the internal structure to let water in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Skiny105 said:

The British might not have the competence to sink a modern battleship before it scuttles itself. But neither the Italians nor the Germans have competence to shoot down obsolete swordfish Bieplanes doing under 200km/ph, probably more casualties to swordfish Bieplanes last to crash landing than axis AAA. Now that's how to troll not by scuttling a extensively damaged vessel but by crippling or sinking a nations best ship with an obsolete string bag because the enemy AAA couldn't hit you...

How effective was Ship AAA in general anyways?


Edit: nevermind, just read about it. basically unless you use proximity shells, which were basically and exclusive US thing, your chance of killing something is ridiculously low.

Especially when you got those tiny bugger flying lower than your AAA can aim lol.

Edited by Stahlvormund101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.