SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Freiwillige · 10-19-09, 09:40 PM

Criticism of the Bismark

Preston claimed that the design was an enlarged reworking of the World War I Bayern class battleships and retained old-fashioned features particularly in respect of the Armour layout, regarded as outdated by the Royal Navy and United States Navy. Authors like Jack Brower or William H. Garzke and Robert O. Dulin have claimed this is not true in their books The Battleship Bismarck and Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II: "This...resulted in some speculation that the Bismarck-class battleships were mere copies of these older ships. This is false; the new ships had to be faster and have more protection, range and firepower; and the percentages allocated to Armour protection, firepower and propulsion were not the same as Bayern. The triple-shaft arrangement and the distribution and caliber of the main armament were the only major similarities."
The low location of the main Armour deck, in the same position as that in WWI ships, left the two decks above the Armour deck exposed to plunging fire and bombs, which the British and Americans reduced by positioning the main Armour decks one deck higher. The Bismarck class battleships were designed to fight in the North Sea and the North Atlantic. In these waters poor visibility, especially during the winter, meant relatively short ranges of engagement, typically 10-15,000 m, were expected; the emphasis was, therefore, on close-range protection. The dual armored decks were chosen by the Kriegsmarine to guarantee that shells and bombs burst upon contact with the upper armored deck, rather than penetrating deeper into the ship's vitals.
Some communication systems, including her main damage-control center and fire-control rooms, were beneath the main armored deck and the cables from bridge and rangefinders were routed through the three armored shafts between these stations and the rooms beneath the main armored deck.
The provision of both a secondary armament of twelve 5.9-inch (150 mm) guns and the inclusion of a separate battery of sixteen 4.1-inch (100 mm) high-angle (anti-aircraft) guns was also criticized on the grounds that fitting two types of weapons required more deck space than the dual-purpose secondary armaments of Allied ships. These weapons enabled both air and surface targets to be engaged, thereby saving on weight used elsewhere in their designs, eliminating the need to carry two sizes of secondary ammunition and facilitating simplified fire-control. The use of dual-purpose armament might possibly have increased the number of anti-aircraft guns but might have weakened the ship's defense against destroyer attacks, which German naval experts deemed more important.The sixteen 4.1-inch (100 mm) AA guns gave good performance early in the war, but against newer and better aircraft types it became necessary to convert the 5.9-inch (150 mm) guns for dual-purpose use against both surface and aerial threats.

10-19-09, 09:40 PM	#12
Freiwillige The Old Man Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Phx. Az Posts: 1,458 Downloads: 24 Uploads: 0	Criticism of the Bismark Preston claimed that the design was an enlarged reworking of the World War I Bayern class battleships and retained old-fashioned features particularly in respect of the Armour layout, regarded as outdated by the Royal Navy and United States Navy. Authors like Jack Brower or William H. Garzke and Robert O. Dulin have claimed this is not true in their books The Battleship Bismarck and Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II: "This...resulted in some speculation that the Bismarck-class battleships were mere copies of these older ships. This is false; the new ships had to be faster and have more protection, range and firepower; and the percentages allocated to Armour protection, firepower and propulsion were not the same as Bayern. The triple-shaft arrangement and the distribution and caliber of the main armament were the only major similarities." The low location of the main Armour deck, in the same position as that in WWI ships, left the two decks above the Armour deck exposed to plunging fire and bombs, which the British and Americans reduced by positioning the main Armour decks one deck higher. The Bismarck class battleships were designed to fight in the North Sea and the North Atlantic. In these waters poor visibility, especially during the winter, meant relatively short ranges of engagement, typically 10-15,000 m, were expected; the emphasis was, therefore, on close-range protection. The dual armored decks were chosen by the Kriegsmarine to guarantee that shells and bombs burst upon contact with the upper armored deck, rather than penetrating deeper into the ship's vitals. Some communication systems, including her main damage-control center and fire-control rooms, were beneath the main armored deck and the cables from bridge and rangefinders were routed through the three armored shafts between these stations and the rooms beneath the main armored deck. The provision of both a secondary armament of twelve 5.9-inch (150 mm) guns and the inclusion of a separate battery of sixteen 4.1-inch (100 mm) high-angle (anti-aircraft) guns was also criticized on the grounds that fitting two types of weapons required more deck space than the dual-purpose secondary armaments of Allied ships. These weapons enabled both air and surface targets to be engaged, thereby saving on weight used elsewhere in their designs, eliminating the need to carry two sizes of secondary ammunition and facilitating simplified fire-control. The use of dual-purpose armament might possibly have increased the number of anti-aircraft guns but might have weakened the ship's defense against destroyer attacks, which German naval experts deemed more important.The sixteen 4.1-inch (100 mm) AA guns gave good performance early in the war, but against newer and better aircraft types it became necessary to convert the 5.9-inch (150 mm) guns for dual-purpose use against both surface and aerial threats.