"Was the Bismarck really that good a ship?" Topic

I am not trolling, honest!
This is not my specialty.
I always thought it had "only" 15" guns.

How would it have fared against a well-drilled British battleship of the latest type, or an Iowa or North Carolina?

No, not that good. Not much better than a warmed over 1918 battlecruiser, got her myth of invincibility from scoring a lucky hit on a vessel 20+ years older than her. Poor propulsion layout (3 shafts, virtually zero ability to steer on engines, which proved fatal), weak stern, inefficient secondary and tertiary armament layout, etc….

Bismarck was excellent when compared to other early war battleships. I think when you start comparing her to the later war battleships like Iowa etc she falls behind.

This website gives you some data to look at direct comparisons but does not give you intangibles like crew quality etc.

kbismarck.com/genedata.html

She outweighed everyone early in the war and had larger guns outside of the Rodney class and the odd Japanese BB or US BB with 16 inch guns but was much more modern.

She was faster, had a greater cruising range and something very few ships had early in the war… a full AAA suite.

Of the early war ships I will argue the North Carolina Class and her kin would have been equal to the Bismarck due to being just as fast and having larger guns with better range.

I can not really answer the question , but I'm real glad my Dads ship (HMS Ramillies) did not find out when ordered to search for her.

Dunno how GOOD it was, but it sure was a pretty one.

Doug

Ship for ship, she was an excellent design for her day, and I'm not so sure the hit was a lucky one.

Many German vessels of the time had radar, and I suspect that assisted greatly in the sinking of the Hood.

As pointed out, there were better, later designs used in the Pacific, but for the European Theater at the time, she was a substantial threat.

That's why the British spent so much time hunting down her sister ship, the Tirpitz.

She was pretty poor compared with just about every other battleship design that was on the slipway at the same time, e.g. KGVs, North Carolinas, Littorios. her radar was nothing to write home about, the British Type 279 was proving to be a more reliable system, plus the Germans tactically failed to capitalise on the use of radar (and radar detection). She also had one of the lightest broadsides (15" shells lighter than Allied designs and not as penetrative) and her armour scheme wasn't all that efficient, and was relatively poor as far as her main armament was concerned (which explains why she was silenced so quickly when engaged by KGV and Rodney)

FWIW we use Bismarck as an examplar in some of the lectures I teach on ship survivability. She's good for providing examples both good and bad.

David has answered your question perfectly John. I really can't add anything more to his two comments. A very nice looking ship, but with serious flaws.

You asked about how she would have stood up to a similar foreign ship. Well even with the trouble and bugs in the Prince of Wales at Denmark Straits, she hit the Bismarck on the bow, and Bismarck was forced to run for repairs. Even with the damage PoW suffered in the same action, when she withdrew it wasn't to head home like Bismarck, but to join the Norfolk & Suffolk in shadowing the German ships (Prinz Eugen was still with Bismarck at this time).

Her hull armor was much better than any other ship except the Iowa and So. Dak class for close in fighting. Not so good for taking long range hits. PoW ran like a scalded cat when having to face Bismarck and PE alone.

The senior British officer on the scene was Rear Admiral Wake-Walker onboard HMS Norfolk, it was he who ordered PoW to disengage.

One hit from PoW and Bismarck was effectively mission dead, down by the bow, trailing oil and running like a scared rabbit for France. If she hadn't scored a lucky hit on HMS Hood, she would have died a few days earlier than she actually did…

All ships are subject to lucky hits. Like the one on oil tanks. That's the random nature of ship hits. They don't always hit the thickest armor plate. In one battle one US ship took a demoralizing hit on their ice cream machine.

This shot of her is sure impressive though, IMO:

@Mobius

The Royal Navy runs on grog.
The US Navy on ice cream. It's how they keep the Marines in line.

As was said before she was better than most older WWI-era ships, but not so special if compared to contemporary ships.

Admiral Lutjens stopped Capitan Lindemann from pursuing the Prince of Wales. Which is what allowed her to survive to be sunk by the Japanese.

wasn't she a modified WWI Bayern class in design?

And in answer to the question good enough to have the Admiralty changing into their brown trousers

Her armor layout was a slightly updated version of the WWI Baden, her secondary layout was totally outdated, and her powerplant was badly arranged. For a ship commissioned in 1941 was she was a very nice 1920's design (and an unmodified one, at that). Against any contemporary ship, she comes in a very poor second.

"And in answer to the question good enough to have the Admiralty changing into their brown trousers"

Funny, I don't recall the celebration when she pulled into Brest following her successful raid. (Oh, that's right, the RN SANK her…)

Her armor layout was a slightly updated version of the WWI Baden, her secondary layout was totally outdated, and her powerplant was badly arranged. For a ship commissioned in 1941 was she was a very nice 1920's design (and an unmodified one, at that). Against any contemporary ship, she comes in a very poor second.

Which is where Germany was technology wise after Hitler scrapped the treaty of Versailles?

"Which is where Germany was technology wise after Hitler scrapped the treaty of Versailles?

Pretty much, as far as large surface ship design goes.

As others have said, a slightly updated WW1 design that stumbled into an undeserved reputation with one lucky hit on a ship even more poorly designed than her.

In her last battle despite being fully intact as far as fighting ability she was toothless and silent within 15 minutes.

Her one good feature in common with the even worse Scharnhorst and Hipper designs was that she was a really good looking ship.

"Her one good feature in common with the even worse Scharnhorst and Hipper designs was that she was a really good looking ship."

Very true! Although, for me, I've always felt Scharnhorst to be the better looking ship (and a worse design…remember the 'top hat' in her deck armor?).

I thought that it was the Prinz Eugen (now she was a beauty & survived the war) that got the lucky hit on the Hood?

On the "good" side Bismarck, in common with most German capital ships, had excellent subdivision of her hull. This reduced habitability as many small compartments are not as convenient as fewer large ones, but did increase her watertight integrity.

The arrangement of the armour was out-dated compared to the latest US designs but I think can be described as adequate.

On the "bad" side was the major error of running the majority of command and control systems above the armoured deck. This meant communications between armament and directors was soon disabled by non-penetrating shots. I think it was Frigettan-Kapitan Mullenheim who wrote that this was the reason the main armament was silenced early in the final battle.

Well I am going to disagree a bit here, hope not to get people offended. The Bismarck was a poor design because it was a throw back to the pre-dreadnought mixed armament of BB guns and cruiser guns on the same hull. There was a wasted 660 tons (plus barbette) of weight to add 6 redundant 6" guns to the ship. Why? Additional large guns would have served better and these guns also took up space that could have been better served for more AA, armor or a smaller ship (and hence part of the cost to paying for an additional ship). The also were not broadside guns and likely could only shoot 6 tubes in any one direction. But it looked impressive and that was the major benefit.

Compare the North Carolina (37,500 short tons laid down 1937) with the Bismarck (41,700 short tons, 1936) (+14%).

Main armament 9 x 16" ……..8 x 15"
more BB hitting power for the North Carolin

cruiser armament none……….12 limited arc 5.9"
this is what CA and CL's are for

AA armament (the Bismarck was built for service where operating in confined waters of the north sea was necessary, so it carried a max'ed out AA armament from the start. It was limited in further expansion by the existence of the redundant 6" turrets. I show the North Carolina with its max'ed out AA armament)

20 5" guns………12 4.1" guns with poorer arcs of fire
60 40mm guns……..16 37mm guns
46 20mm guns……..18 20mm guns

The smaller North Carolina has ~ double the heavy AA and ~3.7 times the light AA than the Bismark.

If it was a lucky hit from Prinz Eugen that sank the Hood Huscarle, then it must be the worst shot in military history as the Prinz was supposed to be firing at the Prince of Wales at the time… :-)

@1968billsfan

The No. Carolina as commissioned had:
20 5"/L38 dual purpose
16 28mm AA guns
12 .50 cal AA

Shortly changed to
20 5"/L38 dual purpose
40 28mm AA guns

In 1942 the 10 20mm AA of the Tripitz went to 50 20mm AA. Showing the design was not 'maxed out' in 1939.

Main armament 9 x 16" ……..8 x 15"
more BB hitting power for the North Carolina

Funny how these simple comparisons are never applied to the Yamato's 9 x 18.1" guns to show it had more BB hitting power.

Mobius- When the US BB can throw 9 2700lb shells versus Bismark's 8 1798lb shells (and the US shells have better penetration across all ranges; horizontal and deck armor), then yes, it does matter.

As for Yamato's 18.1": For a shell that outweighed the US shell by 500lbs, it performance was very mediocre. The penetrative performance of the two shells were nearly identical. For all that the IJN went through to ship this gun, you'd expect better performance.

@1968billsfan;

Got to agree with you. The " secondary" armament + AA armament was a redundancy. Look at Dreadnought. 12" guns and 12pdr.s only. A 15" gun will sink a destroyer or cruiser, no need for a mid sized gun. The eight torpedo tubes in armoured mopuntings were a waste of space, too!

IIRC torpedoes only on Tirpitz, tubes salvaged from one of the destroyers lost at Narvik. Don't think they were armoured.

@ spontoon:

A 15" gun would certainly sink a destroyer, but it's not so easy to hit something the size of an MTB with one!

As things played out you're right about the secondary and AA armament. However the original idea was for Bismarck to fight as part of the "Z Plan" fleet in the North Sea against the RN. Under those circumstances, the possibility of being attacked by MTBs or destroyers with aircraft also lining up on the ship couldn't be ruled out, and maybe the idea of the different armaments suddenly holds some merit?

And you're right again David, Bismarck didn't have torpedo tubes.

Churchill's severe criticism of Admiral Wake-Walkers (C.S.I.) and Captain Leach (Prince of Wales) for not pressing home the attack on the Bismarck in the Denmark Strait. Tovey maintained that they had acted perfectly correctly, and as he would have done, in shadowing rather than attacking, and when the Prime Minister threatened to have them brought to trial by court martial Tovey reacted by saying that he would resign his command to act as the accused's friend. The idea was dropped. The Reason why the Bismarck did not chase down the POW. was that they thought it was the KGV and that the rest of the Home Fleet was close by.

I understand that the state of the POW was so new it still had workers from the yard aboard.

The Tirpitz was left behind for the very same reasons.

All in all, probably not a bad builders trial considering making a hit or two on the Bismark.

Don't know, but she certainly was pretty.

After reading all of the above, I got nothing. David Manley, costal2 and 1968billsfan have really said it all.

Mobius, you have a limited point about the Bismarck later adding more 20mm light AA guns. The limitation about that point is that (as the US found out later in the Pacific war) the 20mm and 50calibre guns were pretty useless to protect the ship from attack. They were sometimes called "revenge weapons" because the shells were not big enough to reliably shoot down attacking planes before they dropped their bombs or suicide crash dived. They were good for shooting at a close in plane recovering from a dive and making noise and warning of an attacking plane (in the US navy's Pacific war view). The quad and double 40mm Bofors were the real close in defense AA guns. The troublesome thing is that a quad 40mm was almost as big and heavy a piece of machinery as a 5" turret. These aspects are why I expressed the opinion that the Bismarck was a bad design, because the six 6" turrets wasted displacement, top weight, and sky view. Better would have been double or triple dual purpose 105mm turrets and/or fire directors, and 105mm gun positons could have become multi barrel Borfors or 37mm AA guns. The 20mm light AA guns added little. The US navy did add them in every spot where there was a few square feet of clear deck space, it might be moot if the casualties of these unprotected positions was worth the discomfort they caused the Japanese.

I have no interest in big-boat WWII naval wargaming (I prefer coastal actions), but this is a very interesting, very educational thread, and all of the posts are very well written. Kudos, everyone.

1968billsfan, you are right about the 20mm. The US once described their usefulness as only to warn the rest of a ship that an enemy aircraft was approaching. They might be useful against the slow canvas swordfish, however.

But, you did include the 20mm guns in your tout of the North Carolina.

A friend and I played out Denmark Straits a while back with the All at Sea rules, with an eerily similar result to the historical: after a few salvos, the Germans took some hits, but the Hood went down due to a lucky critical hit. PoW beat a hasty retreat. Spooky. . ..

As for Bismarck itself, not much to add. Seems like all the WW2 Kriegsmarine capital ships were mostly for threat/propaganda value as opposed to having an actual role. Bismarck's hull took hit after hit until she finally sank, but from what I've read her deck was rendered unusable within 15 minutes or so. So pretty poor as a fleet action ship, of course she was intended as a fast convoy raider, correct?

"…of course she was intended as a fast convoy raider, correct?"

Not originally Spudeus. The original plan was for her to be part of the Z Plan fleet, a balanced fleet of battleships, carriers, etc. that would be able to fight the RN in a fleet action in the North Sea. This explains the separate secondary 5.9" and the AA 4.1" guns, so she could fight "small stuff", aircraft and capital ships – with the 15" guns – simultaneously. Once the RN had been beaten, the German ships were to break out in task forces to scour the N. Atlantic looking for convoys.

She was a stepping stone to the next series of battleships, the "H" Class, one of which were actually laid down and material was being gathered for a second in 1939, but broken up and the steel used for other projects when WW2 started.

So Bismarck and Tirpitz were left high and dry, ready to take part in a battle which now could never happen.

Question can't be answered.

All ships are built for a purpose and an envisioned mission. If that ship gets to actuate that mission and serve in the purpose for which they are built then success or failure will determien the "goodness" as in excellence or the lack thereof of the design.

Let me give you an example. The seven South American Battleships built before World War One were built for a political purpose. That purpose was for world prestiege (we got dreadnoughts) and as a deterrent against their neighbors.

They served admirably in both roles. They did give them a certian amount of prestiege and consideration in the world (even though the maintenance and repair had to be done in foreign ports, and they were probably never really serviceable.

Remember the Rio De Jenairo of Brazil was bought by the Turks and later was commandeered by the British, and the Alirante lattore became the Canada and was resold to Chile After the War. The Chilean Alirante Cochrane became HMG Eagle.

So the five actual battleships who got to South America were excellent ships and accomplished their purpose of international prestiege and deterrence, and probably thereby saved these three state millions and millions of actual war expenses.

Same with the British "fire-cracker" battle cruisers at Jutland. That's not what they were designed for, and they shouldn't have been there. They were designed to hunt armored cruisers, which, when they were tracking donw Von Peee they did excellently.

So what was the mission and purpose for which Bismark was built? I suggest that if you follow the "Z" plan it was to be one of a squadron of powerful surface ships to lay in the line and conduct a traditional surface action. Chasing merchants was not the design and purpose they were intended for, so even though they had some excellent qualities that wasn't their job. NOR for that matter were the Graf Spee's They were built for prestiege and to flaunt the treaty of Versailles- The give away is in the name. Pocket-Battleships. Almost as if "Well build the next best closest thing to battleships if you won't let us have battleships.

It all depends on purpose and mission

This could really be a separate thread, but I would say that was the dilemma faced by all navies in the inter-war years. You design a capital ship for a specific purpose/mission profile and lay it down; several years later when it is finally fitted out and ready to sail the technological/military/political situation in all likelihood has already rendered its reason for being obsolete!

Nobody foresaw the dominant role played by air power; just about every country started to dump secondary armament from their vessels in order to cram more and more AA batteries in. Even the Iowas, designed as fast battlewagons, fell victim to this: they spent their WW2 careers performing shore bombardments. The Yamatos never engaged in the intended gunnery duels either.

But that's a big part of why I play wargames – I want to see what would have happened. . .

OSchmidt: Just one small detail in an otherwise excellent comment, I don't think the Germans called the Admiral Graf Spee or her two older sisters Pocket Battleships.

As far as I know this was a term coined by the British newspapers, half in scorn half in admiration, when Deutschland first appeared.

Until 1940 the Germans simply called them Panzerschiffe – Armoured Ships – not a bad description for them considering their speed and firepower. In 1940 the KM redesignated them as heavy cruisers, although they were a bit on the slow side for that.

Dear Cuchulainn.

Yes, you are correct. I concede the point on who termed them. But do you agree that their purpose was to push the envelope of the Versailles treaty as an act of political defiance. They certainly don't make sense as a real warship, and as a raider. The reason I ask this is it is my personal opinion from reading about warships in the post 1880 eras that there is a dimension few gamers consider- which is the political nature of warships.

One comment on this is all the editions of Janes' Fighting Ships. All of them have copious advertisements for everything from hoses and cuttlery, time pieces and spanners up to diesel engines, turbines, steam plants, torpedoes, armor and of course even building whole ships. I contend that these were not only there to defray the cost of the publication but as a political means to showcase the capabiliites of the various major inudustrial shipyards, and-- a point of pride and patriotism as much as commercial advertisement. WE all know that the German Navy of WWI was built more or less as a vanity piece for Germany and the Kaiser, but the vice was not confined to the Germans.

Thank you for the kind compliments.

Otto

Hi Otto

"But do you agree that their purpose was to push the envelope of the Versailles treaty as an act of political defiance"

Without any doubt that was a very large part of their role. Indeed the reason I didn't mention it in my previous post was because I totally agree with you! :-)

Speaking of the North Carolina. From my dad's ship Nov 1944 at Pearl.

Then there's the Wisconsin.