"The not so mighty Bismarck (linked article)" Topic

link

"With her relatively light armor-piercing projectile weight of 1,764 pounds (800 kg), the Bismarck could deliver only 14,112 pounds (6,400 kg) of steel and explosives to the enemy with each salvo from her eight 15-inch/47-caliber guns. In contrast, seven much older U.S. battleships of World War I vintage could deliver 15,300 to 16,800 pounds to the enemy with broadsides fired by their smaller caliber but greater number of 14-inch guns…"

That seems to be a very superficial comparison between ships. It doesn't take into account if the guns could penetrate each other's armor, chances of getting hits, range of the guns, or if they could even hit each other.

Naval Institute has gone downhill, articles like this were once written by experts in the field for this publication. Now there's an ad as soon as the website opens for an article contest where the topic has to be 'Diversity and Inclusion.'

That seems a very superficial analysis.

Weight of broadside isn't everything and Bismarck's guns were very good at penetrating belt armour. Her (his, I think, in German usage) design was optimised for shorter ranges than US Battleships and that implies high velocity but lighter shells and armour that protected against sinking rather than deck penetration – a reflection of expected North Sea / East Atlantic weather v Pacific?

Not a wonder ship and not the best use of the displacement but tough to sink and with an accurate main battery that was a threat to any allied Battleship.

Ask the HMS Hood how inferior the Bismark's guns were, oh wait you can't!
Rate of fire and optics means hitting the target, which is more important.
On a side note, the American navy in WW1 had to be trained by the British navy. They were not trained to shoot over 10,000 yards.

I don't think a comparison of Bismark to Hood is really fair. Hood was 20 years older and was never modernized. Compare Bismark to the KG5, North Carolina, Richelieu and Vittorio Veneto.
The question of why 15" and why twin turrets is valid.

"comparison of Bismark to Hood" not trying to compare them.

Just disproving authors comment about Inferior guns of the Bismarck. Not many battleships were sunk by other battleships in WW2.

The other one that immediately occurs to me is "Washington" sinking "Kirishima" at Guadalcanal: another case of a modern battleship up against an older one. There was Surigao Strait, "Scharnhorst," and "Bismarck" herself, of course.

"The question of why 15" and why twin turrets is valid."

Germany had never built anything bigger than 15" and heavy gun production had atrophied after the First World War. Maybe they thought anything more was increasing the technical risk too much.

My understanding is that, from a gunnery direction and rate of fire per gun perspective, 4 twin turrets is ideal. Triple turrets are driven by needing weight savings in treaty or practicality limited designs.

"Germany had never built anything bigger than 15" and heavy gun production had atrophied after the First World War. Maybe they thought anything more was increasing the technical risk too much."
Allow me to introduce you to the Karl Morser…

"Allow me to introduce you to the Karl Morser…"

Good one but how many of those had they mounted in turrets, on ships?

More seriously, it was quite a conservative design and I do think that links back to the restrictions on what ships they were allowed to build after the end of the First World War leading to a lack of new experience compared with the USA and UK, despite the 'Battleship Holiday'.

Lighter shells per caliber means round is moving faster.
A faster round gets to the target faster, which means leading target a shorter distance. Greater chance of hitting the target.
Downside is shorter barrel life. Germans preferred it in both wars.

In game terms it does make you wonder how to reflect it all.

I grew up using GQ rules and they generally just apply an arithmetical calculation to broadside weight. HMS Royal Sovereign had 8 x 15" guns at 4 per gun = 32 full battery AF. HMS Canada had 10 x 14" at 2.9 per gun = 29 full battery AF. Rate of fire was not considered AFAIR. Probably it should be.

Bismarck was an inefficient design in that she had the usual German tertiary batteries as well as secondaries plus she had heavy AA as well. US and UK designs were far more elegant with their DP secondaries. How you bake that into rules I dinna ken.