How did the Bismarck really sink?

Hello brndirt1,

is there to your knowedge any report or account given by a surviving German higher rank in regards to Bismarck's final hour?

I find it a bit strange or surprising that in this matter, all the info seems to be drawn from British accounts. Not saying that I am discounting British reports - but how come the German side seems to be totally silent in this matter.

Regards
Kruska

 

Only this.


Goto:


Naval On-Line Archive - KBismarck.com

Which includes the "war diary" of the ship itself, and Admiral Lutjens’.

 

actually I do believe that no Allied vessel could withstand that that level of punishment. 3 tallboy bunker busters and a 2200 lb magnetically attached underwater demolitions charge. Not to mention the hourly bombing raids by the British. ( we also can look at the pounding the Bismarck took as testament to the fine craftsmanship that made the Tirpiz class so exceptional.

 

Hello brndirt1,

thanks - I will have a read on it.

Regards
Kruska

 

Here is a link to the underwater pics of the Bismarck, now while the damage to the rudder and screw area are debatable, they were certainly "damaged", and I fail to see how a collision with the sea floor could warp the rudder as shown.

Goto:

Bismarck - The Wreck - Part 5 - Aft & Rudder Area

 

Much the same way the much older Queen Elizabeth and Malaya did in Alexandera harbor did: Shallow water and a high state of watertight readiness. As for surviving, that is a matter of opinion. Yes, Tripitz didn't sink after the X-sub attack. But, she also was rendered useless for operations for nearly a year while repairs were carried out to fix the damage caused.

What does this have to do with anything? Rodney hit Bismark by her gunnery officer's estimation 40 times in 112 salvos fired. You might note that at 0902 KGV hit Bruno (B) turret on the Bismarck at a range of approxmately 16,000 yards and both gunnery directors on KGV and Rodney observed this turret detonate and the rear plate of it fly off. Clearly this was not only a penetrating hit but one that devastated that turret. This was less than two (2) minutes after Anton (A) turret took a penetrating hit on its barbette and was also put out of action. This occurs about 15 minutes into the action.
By 0930 Bismarck who's main battery was now completely silenced was under fire from Rodney at a range of just 6,000 yards. Rodney firing salvos 61 to 64 obtained a number of hits. At about the same range salvos 74 and 75 were seen to score several more hits.
If any of these (and it is likely some did) struck any portion of the armored belt they would have gone through it like a 16d nail into soft pine at that range.
All shells fired by Rodney were Mk 1 16" APC rounds.
Eventually, Rodney closed to as little as 3,000 yards and continued to pour fire into the now defenseless Bismark.

Speaking of duds, the KM had a very high rate of these with their heavy shells. As little as one in 10 performed adequitely. A major reason for this was the lack of live testing on these shells done prior to operational use. The US had one of the lowest rates of dud heavy naval shells as theirs were adequitely tested (about 1.5 in 10).
The British come in at between 2 and 3 in 10 failing to properly detonate while the Japanese run about 50%.

It was North Carolina that took that hit. The torpedo was a 21" fired from the submarine I 15. This struck between frames 45 and 46 on the port side. A hole 32 feet x 18 feet was opened up and shell plating was damaged over a 44 foot area.
The damage included cracking of three plates in the belt, damage to a roller support assembly in No. 1 turret, flooding of some magazine spaces in part and the admittance of about 970 tons of water.

British destroyers did not attack Bismarck. Torpedo hits on that ship include several by various cruisers and one from Rodney along with several aerial torpedo hits. While it is likely that those striking within the protected area of the ship did not cause a failure of the torpedo defense system the combination of shell damage and torpedo hits would have allowed for eventual progressive flooding over the 3rd deck (lower armor deck) and would have eventually caused the ship's loss. If the crew scuttled the ship in whole or part they only accelerated a process that was already in progress.

The US was the world leader in welding of marine vessels prior to WW 2. All of the newer US battleships along with much of the older ones where retrofitted and upgraded were welded. US cruisers and destroyers were largely welded too.
As for quality of armor: There really isn't much to choose here. Bismarck's might have been a tiny bit better but nothing that would have made any significant difference. Every navy was using some variant of triple alloy (nickel, chrome, moly or nickel, chrome, vanadium, etc.) steel much like today's ASTM 8000 series.

Bismarck's design was largely predicated on the WW 1 Baden class battleship. German designers had not had any interm experiance in battleship design like the US, British or, Japanese had where their design staffs had not only the experiance of continual improvements but also were working from live testing that had been done between the wars.
This is a major reason why the Bismarck was laid out so poorly. She lacked the all-or-nothing system of other navy's ships. The intermediate belt armor provided was worthless. In fact, the provision of an 8" upper belt to the main deck only served to ensure that any heavy shells penetrating this area would detonate and cause massive splinter damage to the area behind it.
The use of a split secondary armament was also antiquated by WW 2 standards. The provision of a seperate 6" secondary surface battery and a 4.1" AA battery left both inadequite for their tasks. A larger dual purpose battery would have served much better.
Bismarck also lacked the refinement of having a split plant design. Instead, as in WW 1 battleships her plant had the boilers grouped in the front with the turbines grouped behind them.
The deck armor was in particular badly laid out. The 2" upper deck was worthless. It was insufficent to keep heavy shells out and too thin to reliably initate their fuzes. The main deck was a mere 3 to 4" thick when contemporary battleships were already at 5+ inches of deck armor. This shows a lack of understanding of the latest battleship design practices and rather, a reversion to late WW 1 practice.

Do provide a source for this.

The design of Bismarck for her time is highly unconventional compared to other navy's practices. The retention of the twin turret is unique to the Germans. The retention of late WW 1 armoring schemes is likewise unique to them. The split secondary battery is also unique. Bismarck for her time was a relatively poor battleship given the tonnage on which she was built.
Compare: Bismarck managed 8 x 15" guns with a 3 to 4" deck and a 12.5" belt at 29 knots on roughly 46,000 tons. North Carolina managed 9 x 16" guns with a 5" deck and 13.5" belt at 28 knots on 42,000 tons. The KGV managed 10 x 14" with a 14" belt and 5" deck at 28 knots on 41,000 tons.
Thus, Bismarck has the least battery, least armor and only an equal speed on quite a bit more tonnage. This points to a lot of wasted weight in the design.

 

Gezus, how many Bismarck threads are there on the Forum?

I just ran into one of Kai Petri's posts

I wouldn't know about "inches of steel thickness etc..., or the Bismarck being an average, good or fantastic battleship. Is there an account of another battleship during WWII of having taken such a beating?

Regards
Kruska

 

The rather old and poorly armored Kirishima took about 40 16" shell hits in Second Savo. She later took several bomb hits the next day and eventually sank from progressive flooding.

The Musashi and Yamato both took well over a dozen torpedo and bomb hits before sinking.

Yamashiro at Suriago Straight took in the neighborhood of 40 or 50 heavy shell hits and about 6 or so torpedoes before sinking. Even after her pounding by the US battleline she managed to still stagger away at about 10 knots before destroyers closed and finished her off.

So, all in all, what Bismarck realistically took in hits (about 80 to 100 heavy shell hits... the smaller stuff really doesn't count for much) and about 8 to 10 torpedo hits is pretty normal overall for killing off a modern battleship.

 

Hello T.A.G.,

thanks for the info. I wasn't aware that it took so many hits to sink a battleship.
I find it quite surprising then, that the Japanese were able to inflict such heavy and fast losses on the US fleet at Pearl or towards Prince of Wales and the other British Battleship using "only" torpedoes and bombs.

Regards
Kruska

 

its not my original source but it close enough
http://www.bobhenneman.info/grafzeppelin.htm

 

According to the article you cite the Soviets put just two torpedoes into Graf Zeppelin after some bombing with mostly relatively light bombs that would have had little effect on the ship. Two torpedoes is about average for a cruiser sized ship in poor material condition to sink it.

 

General Belgrano was sunk with almost obsolecent or at least nearly obsolecent torpedos. Not a battleship by any means, but didnt take much.

 

Rather a battlecruiser than a battleship...

Taken from the BBC History site with regards to The Battle Of North Cape where Scharnhorst was sunk...

The hull shows extensive damage from both armour-piercing shells and torpedoes. HMS Duke of York fired 80 broadsides; and the Allied ships fired a total of 2,195 shells during the engagement. Some 55 torpedoes were launched at Scharnhorst, and 11 are believed to have found their target. There is now an explanation of why she sank so suddenly. A massive internal explosion - probably in an ammunition magazine below a forward gun turret, had blown off her bow. The entire bow section remains together as a mass of wreckage and armour, but separated from the main wreck.


Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/scharnhorst_01.shtml

 

No.
Even if the scuttling charges were the principle cause of the Bismarck's sinking the credit still goes to the RN, because it was their actions which forced the crew to scuttle her.

No it isn't, in the case of the Red Baron its more a case of two different nation's seeking to claim the credit, Canada in the case of Captain Brown and Australia for the ground fire.

In the case of the Bismarck there really is no credit in claiming to have scuttled her, its just an admission of defeat.

 

It would have been impressive if she had survived this onslaught, but she didn't..... she sank.

 

I find it a bit strange or surprising that in this matter, all the info seems to be drawn from British accounts. Not saying that I am discounting British reports - but how come the German side seems to be totally silent in this matter.

May I suggest Battleship Bismarck by Baron von Mullenheim-Rechberg, the senior surviving officer.

A friend of mine (Bismarck admirer) had told me that he (I can't exactly recall) read or saw a TV report in wich it was stated that the rudder had actually been repaired - but somehow the captain did not receive that information.

Aside from the visual evidence, which apparently they did not have at the time of that TV report, simple common sense makes this difficult to believe. The attempts to repair the rudder or regain control of the ship were the captain's main concern that night; he and his crew would have to be remarkably incompetent for this to happen.

now the bismarck was attacked after sinking the hood buy a destroyer squadron and was hit by a torpedo, ……..

British destroyers did not attack Bismarck.

Allow me to add "at that time". That attack was carried out by nine Swordfish from Victorious, but Bismarck was attacked unsuccessfully by five destroyers during her last night afloat.

According to Battleship Bismarck, no fewer than sixty torpedos were launched at Bismarck, with at least 5 and possibly 9 hits:

Victorious aircraft, eight 18", 1 hit
Ark Royal aircraft, thirteen 18", 2/3 hits
Four* destroyers, sixteen 21", no hits
Rodney, twelve 24.5", 1 claimed hit
Norfolk, eight 21", 1 possible hit
Dorsetshire, three 21", 2/3 hits

* a fifth destroyer, the Polish-manned Piorun, engaged the battleship with her 4.7" guns but for some reason did not fire torpedos.

Although shellfire could render a capital ship hors de combat, it usually took torpedos to finish one off.

The rather old and poorly armored Kirishima took about 40 16" shell hits in Second Savo.

Figures I've read a couple of times are nine 16" hits out of 75 fired and about 40 5" hits (Washington's secondary armament). The American 16" fired an unusually heavy and destructive projectile, 2700lb compared to around 2200lb for most 16" and 3220 for the Japanese 18".

 

There seems to be little question now that she was indeed scuttled.

She was getting lower and lower in the water and her crew was having an increasingly difficult time fighting the fires and keeping her on a level keel. Sort of sounds like sinking to me. It seems highly unlikly to me that she would have remained long afloat once the crew abandoned her.

 

That seems to be rather at odds with a number of things I've read including: http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf
Among other things she sunk that night well before any bombers could get her. You may be thinking of her sister Hiei.

In terms of damage and remaining afloat the Hornet certainly ranks up there with most battleships.

 

The rather old and poorly armored Kirishima took about 40 16" shell hits in Second Savo.

Figures I've read a couple of times are nine 16" hits out of 75 fired and about 40 5" hits (Washington's secondary armament). The American 16" fired an unusually heavy and destructive projectile, 2700lb compared to around 2200lb for most 16" and 3220 for the Japanese 18".[/QUOTE]

An article in Warship International a couple of years ago concludes that about 20+ 16" hit Kirishima versus the historically repeated 9 hits.

 

The Germans considered her a "Schlachtshiffe" ie battleship.