About the Bismarck vs Hood

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Backfire**

Kayback wrote:
To put it bluntly the Bizmark didn't have enough AA guns to survive much longer than she did.

She had what, 16x 10.5cm Flak 38s, 16x 3.7cm SK C/30's and 12x 2cm FlaK 30 guns.

The Yamato has 162x 25mm guns and was bombed and torpedoed to pieces.

Now the FlaK 38 and SK C/30 vastly out performed the Type 96 25mm guns, and many of the Yamato gun positions were unarmoured and affected by strafing runs, but the simple fact that strafing runs can get through 162x25mm guns and a handful of 13mm guns too shows how vulnerable ships can be to aerial attacks.

If she wasn't sunk outright she'd have eventually suffered the same fate as the Tirpitz

Bismarck AAA suite was actually quite good for the time period. She carrier sixteen 105mm guns, and large number of heavy AA guns is really important, because when you are trying to repel the attack, instead of just causing losses for the attacking force, you need long range guns able to engage the planes before they drop their ordnance. Comparing her main AA battery to some other battleships of the era:
KGV: 16* 5.25inch.
-now this is arguably more powerful battery, though 5.25 incher was quite slow firing gun

Richelieu: 12* 100mm, 9*152mm
-six-inchers did not work very well as AA guns as intended, leaving twelve four-inchers as the main defence. In practice Bismarck's battery was better.

Nelson: 6* 120mm
-this is really weak battery, typical of the 1920's ship

Vittorio Veneto: 12* 90mm
-inferior number of small calibre guns, saving grace was supposed to be very advanced stabilized turrets, but they were unreliable

North Carolina: 20* 5 inch
-newer American battleships of course enjoyed superlative 5"/38 dual purpose gun, although muzzle velocity was bit lower than in equivalent European guns.

But overall, Bismarck's heavy AA battery was quite powerful. 3.7cm SK C30 was however the weak point, as it was a single-shot semiautomatic weapon with much inferior rate of fire.

**BaronIveagh**

Matt Swain wrote:

Karl Donitz said if he'd had significantly more Uboats early on before anti submarine warfare was better developed he could have knocked england out of the war.

But hey, what'd those two know anyway?

Donitz was dead wrong, as anyone who followed British shipbuilding in North America can tell you.

One, the Happy Time only lasted a few months before the Allies put the kibosh on it. Personally, I like to attribute it to the arrival of significant numbers of the Flower Class, which was churned out in Canadian shipyards to the degree that 294 were launched by wars and, and they put an end to over 40 Uboats, making up over half of Allied convoy escorts.

Two: While the uboats did have a significant psychological effect, the reality was that new freighters could be built in North America almost faster than the Germans could sink them. 2,710 were built in the time it took the German uboats to sink 2,779

**Jadenim**

MDSW wrote:
Not entirely OT, but I am really looking forward to the Tom Hanks Greyhound movie, where a novice destroyer commander trying to protect a convoy is pitted against lots of subs in the early part of the war.

I just hope the release goes wider than the Apple channel...

I took out the 7-day free trial just to watch it (lord knows there doesn’t seem to be anything else on Apple TV); it’s pretty good, if a little short. On the one hand it’s very tightly edited, but on the other they could have really ratchet up the tension (a la Das Boot) if they’d had more time for the cat and mouse game. And there’s practically zero character development outside of what happens during the action scenes.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Backfire wrote:
Kayback wrote:
To put it bluntly the Bizmark didn't have enough AA guns to survive much longer than she did.

She had what, 16x 10.5cm Flak 38s, 16x 3.7cm SK C/30's and 12x 2cm FlaK 30 guns.

The Yamato has 162x 25mm guns and was bombed and torpedoed to pieces.

Now the FlaK 38 and SK C/30 vastly out performed the Type 96 25mm guns, and many of the Yamato gun positions were unarmoured and affected by strafing runs, but the simple fact that strafing runs can get through 162x25mm guns and a handful of 13mm guns too shows how vulnerable ships can be to aerial attacks.

If she wasn't sunk outright she'd have eventually suffered the same fate as the Tirpitz

Bismarck AAA suite was actually quite good for the time period. She carrier sixteen 105mm guns, and large number of heavy AA guns is really important, because when you are trying to repel the attack, instead of just causing losses for the attacking force, you need long range guns able to engage the planes before they drop their ordnance. Comparing her main AA battery to some other battleships of the era:
KGV: 16* 5.25inch.
-now this is arguably more powerful battery, though 5.25 incher was quite slow firing gun

Richelieu: 12* 100mm, 9*152mm
-six-inchers did not work very well as AA guns as intended, leaving twelve four-inchers as the main defence. In practice Bismarck's battery was better.

Nelson: 6* 120mm
-this is really weak battery, typical of the 1920's ship

Vittorio Veneto: 12* 90mm
-inferior number of small calibre guns, saving grace was supposed to be very advanced stabilized turrets, but they were unreliable

North Carolina: 20* 5 inch
-newer American battleships of course enjoyed superlative 5"/38 dual purpose gun, although muzzle velocity was bit lower than in equivalent European guns.

But overall, Bismarck's heavy AA battery was quite powerful. 3.7cm SK C30 was however the weak point, as it was a single-shot semiautomatic weapon with much inferior rate of fire.

Weren't Bismarcks 105s mounted in two different types of mounts, making them effectively impossible to control with a common fire control system?

**Kayback**

Backfire wrote:

Bismarck AAA suite was actually quite good for the time period. She carrier sixteen 105mm guns, and large number of heavy AA guns is really important, because when you are trying to repel the attack, instead of just causing losses for the attacking force, you need long range guns able to engage the planes before they drop their ordnance. Comparing her main AA battery to some other battleships of the era:

But overall, Bismarck's heavy AA battery was quite powerful. 3.7cm SK C30 was however the weak point, as it was a single-shot semiautomatic weapon with much inferior rate of fire.

I wasn't saying it wasn't formidable, I was saying in the big picture it wouldn't have meant very much. The Tirpitz was sunk/destroyed by aerial bombardment even though it had fighter protection, land batteries, AA ships, its own AA suite including the 380mm main guns and smoke generators.

It isn't a fair comparison because the Tirpitz was unable to move having suffered other damage that rendered it inoperable as a surface raider but that was also mostly due to air attacks. The development of things like the VB-3 Razon and even the VB-13 / ASM-A-1 Tarzon meant guided attacks were on their way. A maneuvering ship would be more vulnerable to guided attacks than previously. Also, the attackers might have caught the Bismarck in harbour.

**BaronIveagh**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Weren't Bismarcks 105s mounted in two different types of mounts, making them effectively impossible to control with a common fire control system?

Yes and no. The Dop. L. C/31 and Dop. L. C/37 mounts had different elevation and training characteristics, true, but both fed into the same secondary control centers. It's an idea that's been floated before, but more telling was the fact that the Swordfish were traveling below their depression and engaging gun crews who'd been on alert for four days under poor lighting conditions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kayback wrote:

It isn't a fair comparison because the Tirpitz was unable to move having suffered other damage that rendered it inoperable as a surface raider but that was also mostly due to air attacks. The development of things like the VB-3 Razon and even the VB-13 / ASM-A-1 Tarzon meant guided attacks were on their way. A maneuvering ship would be more vulnerable to guided attacks than previously. Also, the attackers might have caught the Bismarck in harbour.

This is debatable. Tirpitz wasn't actually destroyed by the bombs that hit it. Her turrets actually deflected a one ton Tall Boy, so even your Tarzon was not actually a guaranteed kill. What sank Tirpitz was most likely, the explosion of Turret Caesar, who's causes are, effectively, unknown. US BuShips personnel examined the wreck postwar and could not determine the cause of the explosion. Without this mystery explosion, though, Operation Catechism, the final push to destroy Tirpitz by air, would have been a failure.

Early guided munitions like the VB-3 Razon were a very hit or miss affair (pun intended) in actual combat during WW2. On one side you have the hit from a Fritz X that blew up Roma, but on the other, a similar hit failed to sink Warspite, a battleship significantly older.

**Vulcan**

Matt Swain wrote:
Winston Chruchill admitted after the war the Uboat was the one thing that had him scared during the war, not the defeat at dunkirk, not the blitch, not a possible invasion, it was the Uboat that made churchill worry about losing the war.

Karl Donitz said if he'd had significantly more Uboats early on before anti submarine warfare was better developed he could have knocked england out of the war.

But hey, what'd those two know anyway?

Of course, hyperbole couldn't be part of their statements either...

Fact is, yes, 50 more U-boats would have hurt England a lot. But the only way to knock England clean out of the war at that point is to eliminate Churchill as PM. Either assassination or by making his government fall, either way works. Is it possible that shortages in England for six months caused this? Yes. But not probable.

**AlmightyWalrus**

BaronIveagh wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Weren't Bismarcks 105s mounted in two different types of mounts, making them effectively impossible to control with a common fire control system?

Yes and no. The Dop. L. C/31 and Dop. L. C/37 mounts had different elevation and training characteristics, true, but both fed into the same secondary control centers. It's an idea that's been floated before, but more telling was the fact that the Swordfish were traveling below their depression and engaging gun crews who'd been on alert for four days under poor lighting conditions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kayback wrote:

It isn't a fair comparison because the Tirpitz was unable to move having suffered other damage that rendered it inoperable as a surface raider but that was also mostly due to air attacks. The development of things like the VB-3 Razon and even the VB-13 / ASM-A-1 Tarzon meant guided attacks were on their way. A maneuvering ship would be more vulnerable to guided attacks than previously. Also, the attackers might have caught the Bismarck in harbour.

This is debatable. Tirpitz wasn't actually destroyed by the bombs that hit it. Her turrets actually deflected a one ton Tall Boy, so even your Tarzon was not actually a guaranteed kill. What sank Tirpitz was most likely, the explosion of Turret Caesar, who's causes are, effectively, unknown. US BuShips personnel examined the wreck postwar and could not determine the cause of the explosion. Without this mystery explosion, though, Operation Catechism, the final push to destroy Tirpitz by air, would have been a failure.

Early guided munitions like the VB-3 Razon were a very hit or miss affair (pun intended) in actual combat during WW2. On one side you have the hit from a Fritz X that blew up Roma, but on the other, a similar hit failed to sink Warspite, a battleship significantly older.

The Grand Old Lady wasn't ever combat-viable again after that Fritz X hit though, being relegated to shore bombardment duty for the rest of the war.

Also, pretty sure Tirpitz was listing severely even before the turret explosion, no?

**Backfire**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Also, pretty sure Tirpitz was listing severely even before the turret explosion, no?

Ship was already in process of being abandoned, but explosion prevented any chance of salvage and caused high losses for the crew.
Any way, Tirpitz was already unoperational before Catechism, at best Brits might have wasted their resources for some more attacks.

**Matt Swain**

The tirpitz was attacked my stealth minisubs and damaged heavily enough to keep her out of a lot of the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Source

**Backfire**

She was out for 7 months and repair bill was significant, which was of course very convenient for the British, but in retrospect the operation was not as big a success as was hoped.

It is debatable if all the effort spent on sinking Tirpitz was really worth it, especially after Scharnhorst was sank.

**BaronIveagh**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

The Grand Old Lady wasn't ever combat-viable again after that Fritz X hit though, being relegated to shore bombardment duty for the rest of the war.

Also, pretty sure Tirpitz was listing severely even before the turret explosion, no?

Tirp was listing severely due to the hit along her catapult, but her list had stopped increasing and DCTs were starting to gain in incoming water, according to reports, before the turret explosion.

Warspite is a bit of a sore subject. While she was assigned to shore bombardment, the extremity of her damage was actually exaggerated to help justify sending her to the scrappers.

**Matt Swain**

Backfire wrote:
She was out for 7 months and repair bill was significant, which was of course very convenient for the British, but in retrospect the operation was not as big a success as was hoped.

It is debatable if all the effort spent on sinking Tirpitz was really worth it, especially after Scharnhorst was sank.

like you said, the repair was a notable drain on resources. Hell, damage it badly but leave it afloat so the germans have to repair it several times, each time it's out of action and eating resources.

**BaronIveagh**

Matt Swain wrote:
Backfire wrote:
She was out for 7 months and repair bill was significant, which was of course very convenient for the British, but in retrospect the operation was not as big a success as was hoped.

It is debatable if all the effort spent on sinking Tirpitz was really worth it, especially after Scharnhorst was sank.

like you said, the repair was a notable drain on resources. Hell, damage it badly but leave it afloat so the germans have to repair it several times, each time it's out of action and eating resources.

Propaganda value. That and it's simple existence made it a threat to arctic convoys.

**sebster**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Propaganda value. That and it's simple existence made it a threat to arctic convoys.

There's also a lot of risk aversion involved. Sure the allies would likely sink the Tirpitz and any support vessels that took to sea to attack shipping convoys, but when you have several hundred thousand troops still in intensive fighting and dependent on daily supplies, you don't leave it up to 'we'll probably sink them before they disrupt convoys too much'. You just sink it and leave nothing to chance.

**AlmightyWalrus**

sebster wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Propaganda value. That and it's simple existence made it a threat to arctic convoys.

There's also a lot of risk aversion involved. Sure the allies would likely sink the Tirpitz and any support vessels that took to sea to attack shipping convoys, but when you have several hundred thousand troops still in intensive fighting and dependent on daily supplies, you don't leave it up to 'we'll probably sink them before they disrupt convoys too much'. You just sink it and leave nothing to chance.

This. Operational peace of mind is pretty useful. Just like you don't just assume someone is dead after falling off a cliff in a movie you don't leave a battleship mostly sunk. Even a sunk battleship can sometimes be put back into service (c.f. Dunkerque, some of the Pearl Harbor BBs) more easily than a new can be constructed.

**BaronIveagh**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

This. Operational peace of mind is pretty useful. Just like you don't just assume someone is dead after falling off a cliff in a movie you don't leave a battleship mostly sunk. Even a sunk battleship can sometimes be put back into service (c.f. Dunkerque, some of the Pearl Harbor BBs) more easily than a new can be constructed.

If the guns are above water, sometimes you don't even have to raise them. See HMS Canopus.