SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Iranon · 10-19-09, 03:13 PM

Comparing the Bismarck to other capital ships does not really work.

Germany was trying hard to appear as nonthreatening as possible on paper (despite a blatant disregard for the restrictions placed on them in the treaty of Versailles).
Making heavy use of welding to save as much weight as possible made sense in that context, as did choosing relatively small-calibre but higher-velocity guns (the British tried the latter and weren't impressed; not sure if the Germans did have a technological edge or whether they simply saw no alternative for diplomatic reasons).

Nations who didn't have equally strong reasons to deviate from proven technologies didn't.

*

The claim that the Bismarck's armour scheme was obsolete comes up quite frequently but I'm not convinced. The British and Americans sacrificed superstructure armour for more protection over critical parts of the ship for more survivability. This makes perfect sense if you expect your battleships to slug it out with their equals.

Germany had no illusions about rivaling the great naval powers. Her battleships were supposed to avoid direct confrontation with their equals and to focus on sinking merchants. Their secondary use was to keep several times their worth of capital ships busy, who would be trying to force such a confrontation.
As such, a more balanced armour scheme made sense: The main concern wasn't to stay afloat at all, but to not be hurt by inferior opponents to the point of requiring extensive repairs.

*

The following applies less to shipbuilding but the attitude towards German engineering of the time period: It's easy to overestimate it. Germany faced serious shortages of material and industrial power (especially the capacity to produce precisely machined parts in sufficient numbers). At the same time, ambitious projects were approved and engineers had a lot of leeway - arguably too much, because a lack of standardisation was a big problem.

So on one side there are brilliant (or at least deliciously overengineered) feats of technology, on the other it's tempting to explain away the failures by adverse conditions.
They were, however, a natural consequence of pushing known technology to its limits.

10-19-09, 03:13 PM	#5
Iranon Loader Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 89 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	Comparing the Bismarck to other capital ships does not really work. Germany was trying hard to appear as nonthreatening as possible on paper (despite a blatant disregard for the restrictions placed on them in the treaty of Versailles). Making heavy use of welding to save as much weight as possible made sense in that context, as did choosing relatively small-calibre but higher-velocity guns (the British tried the latter and weren't impressed; not sure if the Germans did have a technological edge or whether they simply saw no alternative for diplomatic reasons). Nations who didn't have equally strong reasons to deviate from proven technologies didn't. * The claim that the Bismarck's armour scheme was obsolete comes up quite frequently but I'm not convinced. The British and Americans sacrificed superstructure armour for more protection over critical parts of the ship for more survivability. This makes perfect sense if you expect your battleships to slug it out with their equals. Germany had no illusions about rivaling the great naval powers. Her battleships were supposed to avoid direct confrontation with their equals and to focus on sinking merchants. Their secondary use was to keep several times their worth of capital ships busy, who would be trying to force such a confrontation. As such, a more balanced armour scheme made sense: The main concern wasn't to stay afloat at all, but to not be hurt by inferior opponents to the point of requiring extensive repairs. * The following applies less to shipbuilding but the attitude towards German engineering of the time period: It's easy to overestimate it. Germany faced serious shortages of material and industrial power (especially the capacity to produce precisely machined parts in sufficient numbers). At the same time, ambitious projects were approved and engineers had a lot of leeway - arguably too much, because a lack of standardisation was a big problem. So on one side there are brilliant (or at least deliciously overengineered) feats of technology, on the other it's tempting to explain away the failures by adverse conditions. They were, however, a natural consequence of pushing known technology to its limits.