The KGM Bismarck

Nice one Tomcat!

 

I thought this information quite intriuging.

from Bismarck History

She was undergunned with 15" guns. Imagine with only 13 inchers.

 

The Bismarck was not only the most famous Battleship but also feared to the point of Churchill sending the entire Britsh fleet after Bismarck.And it weighed fully armed at 53,000 tons. As far as gun size goes actually the 15 inch was just as dangerous as the American 16 inch guns were. this is a quote from dkmBismarck about it's main guns "The calibre of the German 380 mm guns (i.e. diameter of bore multiplied by number of calibre to give length of barrel) has traditionally been stated at 47. This figure is no longer quoted in qualified sources and it has been impossible to trace its origins. Furthermore, cal. 47 seems to be inconsistent with the considerable weight of the piece (more than 110 tons) compared with the weight of other modern battleship guns." Bismarck guns were actually 52 caliber allowing for heavier powder charge which gives it walloping hitting power. People only look at the inches when comparing gun power which is only half of the equation. The Bismarck seems to get a bad rap all the time for being overrated;well put any american or british ship in that same situation it was in and any other ship would have blown up and split in two. also look at the fact that Bismarck is in one piece on the bottom of the ocean; whereas Yamato, Hood and many other battleships went kerplewy" blew up into two pieces when sinking. Bismarck wins the all around best battleship award.

 

This is complete nonsense. The Bismarck was armed with the 38cm SKC 34 gun. The design details and characteristics are well known. In fact, several are still in existance such as the ones mounted in Battery Vara in Norway or Battery Todt at Cape Griz Nez in France.

The 38cm SKC 34 gun had a overall caliber of 48.4. The gun including breech weighed 244,713 pounds. Overall length was 64.442 feet.
It used a loose built up liner with 90 rifling grooves with a twist of 1/36 at the breech and 1/30 at the muzzle. Overall length of rifling was 724.596" and a powder charge of either 452.4 or 575.4 lbs was used.
The AP shell weighed 1,763.70 lbs and was fired at a muzzle velocity of 2,690 fps. Maximum range as mounted in the DRH LC/34 twin turret as aboard Bismarck was 39,589 yards theoretically.

The US 16"/45 Mk 5 (as on the Maryland class), 16"/45 Mk 6 and, 16"/50 Mk 7 all out perform the German gun at any range using either the lighter AP Mk 5 2,240 lb shell or more substancially using the later 2,700 lb Mk 8 round. The French 380mm Mle 1935 mounted on the Richelieu class equal the German gun in performance while the Italian 381mm Model 1934 gun of the Vittorio Veneto class slightly out performs it.

If anything, the SKC 34 had good, if unspectacular, performance on par with other nation's 15" naval guns. It was easily outperformed by 16" and even the rather poor Japanese 18.1" guns across the board.

As for her sinking in one piece: Only the fact that all the main magazines were flooded long before she sank and that there were no direct penetrations into a magazine saved her that fate. Scharnhorst, like Yamato had her forward magazines detonate in her final battle (North Cape). So, claiming any superior performance based on this claim (that the magazines did not explode) is just supercilious in nature.

 

Same thought here- Any brand new ship with it's reputation stating the she was a force to be reckon with [poor Hood cop it though],get it's rudder blown off by an obsolete swordfish well i think in my eyes, she could be overated.

 

My dad was on the King George IV and i heard that it was one of the ships that sunk the bismarck? Is that true?

 

FACTS-
You got a value point there.
Hitler not at all wanted to destroy Great/britain at the beginning of the war, all his efforts were to try and gain Great/britains support.

My thoughts-
Yes maybe why they built he Bismarck and the Tripriz, if it went Hitler's way, could of join Bismarck and Tripriz to the mighty Royal Navy and what you mention in you're post, could take on the emeny with alterment power.

 

The story is it was scuttled from the inside, orders from there captain

 

It was not in the Pacific, it was in the Atlantic

 

It was not as simple as that, the Hood's destruction was virtually a lucky shot and the sword fish were only able to hit the Bismarck due to the fact that the heavy AA guns on the Bismarck could not train low enough to hit them. The Bismarck however was a dangerous ship and was a problem if she got out into the Atlantic. Could you imagine the amount of ships the RN would have to divert to attempt to find her in the vastness of the Altantic? Not of course that it would have mattered in the long run for the war, but it could have caused many more merchant men's lives.

 

True at some contents, she was a mighty ship, but How about the Bismarck being hit by an OLD Slow english swordfish? At least the Hood went down with dignetiy by having a long carrier and then being sank by an up to date mordern ship that was built 15 years after Hood's time , while the Bismarck had a very short carrier and virtually was sunk by an old slow English swordfish that was built at least 15 years before Bismarck's time.

 

No disaspect to you Sir at all, May i bring this up,just my thoughts,I don't think of these being facts at all.
Bismarck was not good enough to make it out to the atlantic was she?
If she was that great, i believe you about her being a dangerous ship and so is her sister ship. Did her sister ship do any damage to the R/N? , she should of really had gun's for all kind's of trouble ahead, which she did not have. About the AA guns not train to go that low,i thought the SwordFish was to slow for the Bismarck gun's and that cause the Bismarck to miss there Taget the swordfish.
In todays world, Have you heard of any mighty AirCarft Carrier being hit by an older jet fighter that may cause the aircraft carrier to sink?

 

The Bismarck was a very dangerous ship, the reason she lost in her final battle, was because she was very outnumbered. She would have been very able to break out into the Atlantic, just lucky was on the RN's side to be able to keep tabs her and coordinate there fleets to intercept her. Although the Swordfish was a very obsolete aircraft that in reality had no place in the ww2 battles, her torpedoes were not, and very capable of say .... disabling a Battleship.

When was the last time any aircraft carrier was hit by enemy fire?

But ok, are you saying that an F4 Phantom could not cause significant damage to the USS enterprise in anyway shape or form and that there was absolutely no chance that she could dodge the defensive fire form the carrier, to at least disable her and make her run for home, thus allowing your home fleet to catch and sink her?

 

Sir, I'm saying as it ever happend that an old jet Fighter cause a Air Carft Carrier to founder, like what happend to the Bismark. If it has not happend yet a Jet Fighter causing a Air Craft Carrier to founder, Bismarck sounds over rated in my eyes.

 

No offence firefoxy. But Im finding it very to understand your points or even your logic.

 

Sir, It's my secret langage. No offence taken.
I put it in you're langage. I think Bismarck was a mighty ship back in her day,no doubt about that and one of the best back then.
I think she's overrated just a bit cause she only lasted couple of years or least, while the Hood lasted alot longer than the Bismarck did.
Cheers!

 

The Hood was not hunted as soon as she left her port. The Bismarck's troubles with the sword fish were regrettable for the Germans, and had they been given more time and allowances, they have have developed a more superior defense doctrine against low flying torpedo planes. The Germans were not as experience with Sea born aircraft as the American, Japanese or even the British, she was barely able to keep a large enough Navy going. Here Navy in ww2 was appalling, but in reality no real fault of her own, mainly due to the Versailles Treaty she was limited with her navy.

As already said the Bismarck was a dangerous ship, and one on one with any battleship in the world, I believe she had a chance of winning. The Bismarck was a waste of money and timem but none the less impressive. Was she overated? I don't think so, that is why the British spent a lot of hips to find her, and then again the amount of resources in bomber sorties going after her sister ship the Tirpitz.

 

No sir, I was just stating that Bismarck in my opinion is a bit overated.
I also think the Hood had poor design, but mangage to survive alot longer than The Bismarck. The Hood's deck's were made out of wood? or was it the top of her shell was made out of wood?I'm not sure.
If they were that Great,The Bismarck and the Tripiz, surly they would of cause more damage. Maybe i'm missing some information about this two mighty ships.

 

2 Battleships against the might of the Royal Navy, Commonwealth Navies and the Royal Airforce, what did you really expect them to do, take hem all on by themselves? Considering that the Tirpitz and the Bismarck were commissioned in different years automatically means it will be 1 ship against the entire RN.

The Bismarck destroyed the RN's most powerful ship, and damaged another with the help of the Prinz Eugen. The Tirpitz never fired her guns in anger and this would have been because the British had seen what the Bismarck could do, since after all they were sister ships, so they decided to destroy here in a Fjord by bombers and not allow her to get into the open sea.