Unsinkable Bismarck - The truth?

[AtomAnt]

I ve read that both "Graf Spee" and "Bismarck" were scuttled by their crews after getting hit by numerous british ships. But amazingly none of these pocket battleshpis were in a sinking stage. It was mentioned that crews of these ships scuttled the ships in order to save the building secrets! On the other hand british battle cruiser "Hood" simply exploded and broken in half and went under Bismarck's salvos..

Did german knew a technologically advanced way of builiding ships that other nations are not aware of at that time? If so , is that technology is available for the current ship builders?

[RealityChuck]

It wasn't that the Germans were any more advanced, but that they were better. The Hood exploded because of a weak spot in its armor -- basically a hole that the shipbuilders were depending that no shell would hit. One did, and the ship went up.

But you don't have to be particularly more advanced to decide to cover up the weak spots.

[Who_me?]

While the Graf Spee was a "pocket battleship" and was scuttled just outside the Montevideo harbor, the Bismarck was a full fledged battleship and was sunk by the British (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/germany/gersh-b/bismarck.htm).

[smiling bandit]

It was mostly a matter of cost. Germany didn't have very many ships, but tey had good engineers and gave the Bismark thick, well-placed armor.

[Tranquilis]

It was mostly a matter of cost. Germany didn't have very many ships, but tey had good engineers and gave the Bismark thick, well-placed armor.
That, and very, very good water-tight compartmentation.

[Raguleader]

It wasn't that the Germans were any more advanced, but that they were better. The Hood exploded because of a weak spot in its armor -- basically a hole that the shipbuilders were depending that no shell would hit. One did, and the ship went up.

But you don't have to be particularly more advanced to decide to cover up the weak spots.

Ooh... a nit... *picks at it*

The weak spot in the HMS Hood's armor, IIRC, was the entire deck of the ship. Basically, the Hood was a Battlecruiser, a ship that epitomized "Fly like a butterfly, sting like a sledgehammer". She had the displacement and firepower of a Ship of the Line, but the armor protection of a cruiser, the intention being that she could be used for high-speed hit-and-run attacks against slower targets.

Only problem is, if a Battlecruiser finds herself trading broadsides with a Battleship (or goodness forbid, one of the "Superbattleships" that came about in WWII) then she'll find herself blown out of the water. This happened to the British at the Battle of Jutland in WWI, and it happened to them with the HMS Hood in WWII. IIRC, they had originally planned for the Hood to be sailing towards the Bismark, instead of paralel, so as to provide a smaller target, but ended up showing their broadside instead. Only took one good shot and she was done.

By the end of WWII, I seem to recall that they had stopped building Battlecruisers in favor of Large Cruisers (basically a big, heavily armed cruiser) and Fast Battleships (Which got their extra speed basically by stripping the armor from non-essential places, ie: Everywhere but the engines, magazines, and guns, while protecting all the important stuff)

And on the subject of who sank the Bismark, I seem to recall some German sailors saying the ship was going to sink, it had taken that much damage, but it would have taken a much longer time, so they finished the job themselves to prevent the British from learning anything from the ship.

[Raguleader]

That, and very, very good water-tight compartmentation.

IIRC, British ships were designed for a naval empire, where they would be expected to sail super long distances, spending long periods in foreign waters defending British interests (which, well, were pretty much everywhere at the time) while the German navy had no such obligations. So the Brits had relatively roomy ships built for speed and crew comfort (since they'd be crammed in the ships for a very long time) and the Germans built theirs for high-survivability at the sacrifice of crew comfort and speed.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

One other point: After the battle, the Bismarck was later crippled by what basically amounted to a crop duster, having scored a lucky shot to the rudder. I don’t think anyone at the time realized that Bismarck, Prinz Eugen/Hood, Prince of Wales battle was a battle between dinosaurs (although I think Prinz Eugen was actually a cruiser), regardless of the armor. The day of the battleship as the main line of battle ship was practically over.

[Tranquilis]

...the Brits had relatively roomy ships built for speed and crew comfort (since they'd be crammed in the ships for a very long time) and the Germans built theirs for high-survivability at the sacrifice of crew comfort and speed.While crew comfort was a factor, cost was a more important factor. High levels of compartmentalization costs a lot of money. The UK had a large fleet to cover their far-flung empire, and any reasonable cost saving measures were employed (such as the battle cruiser concept - all the 'bang' of a Dreadnaught, but at a reduced initial and operational cost). The Germans, however, had a rather small capital fleet, and thus had to protect those assets they had in all manners possible. When you can't afford many major unit losses, you'll pay the price for superior damage control even if it means slower building and increased per-unit cost.

One other point: After the battle, the Bismarck was later crippled by what basically amounted to a crop duster, having scored a lucky shot to the rudder.IIRC, part of what enabled this was that the German's automated anti-aircraft fire control system simply could not deal with the very slow speed of the Farley Swordfish torpedo bombers - It kept leading the aircraft by too much, and missing.

[Raguleader]

IIRC, part of what enabled this was that the German's automated anti-aircraft fire control system simply could not deal with the very slow speed of the Farley Swordfish torpedo bombers - It kept leading the aircraft by too much, and missing.

Heh, so to borrow the dinosaur analogy from earlier in the thread, the Dinosaur was crippled by a Pterasaur?

[Whack-a-Mole]

IIRC, part of what enabled this was that the German's automated anti-aircraft fire control system simply could not deal with the very slow speed of the Farley Swordfish torpedo bombers - It kept leading the aircraft by too much, and missing.

This is what I heard too. Who would have possibly thought a Swordfish torpedo plane (essentially a WWI holdover) would be sent against a ship-of-the-line like the Bismarck and stand a chance? Like you said the sighting systems to aim the antiaircraft guns assumed faster planes...no modern plane of that era could fly as slow as the Swordfish and still actually be flying (it'd be stalling). Add to that the Swordfish got off the perfect shot hitting Bismarck where it mattered most and it was all over before it had barely begun.

The Hood did indeed have weak deck armor but I do not think anyone mentioned that the plunging shot that went through it hit an ammo storage bunker causing the ship to literally explode. IIRC only 3 people survived the sinking of the Hood. Again it was a helluva shot. While the Hood was really no match for the Bismarck even the Bismarck crew was surprised atthe Hood's total destruction so quickly. I believe the Hood was actually due for a refit around that time (or shortly afterwards) that would have, among other things, beefed up the deck armor.

Battlecruisers were good on paper but never really lived up to their promise. The idea was they could waste most anything on the seas and run away from the few things (pretty much battleships) that could waste them back. Unfortunately, from what I have read, admirals of the time kept viewing them more like battleships and thus placed them in positions they probably shouldn't have been in.

Also mentioned earlier was the the Graf Spee in the same sentence as the Bismarck. It was already pointed out but bears rerpeating that the Graf Spee was a packet battleship and the Bismarck was a full blown battleship. What needs clarity is the HUGE difference between the two types of ships. Do not let the word "battleship" fool you into thinking they were in the same class. Bismarck was on the order of 3-4x as big as the Graf Spee. Huge difference between the two.

The day of the battleship as the main line of battle ship was practically over.

Do not minimize the importance of the battleship in WWII. Yes, the airplane showed how vulnerable such monsters were to gnats but the battleship still was a very feared opponent. Just look at how ape s**t the British went going after Bismarck. I forget the total order of battle but the British threw what seems like the better part of the Atlantic fleet to chase down Bismarck...it was just too scary a ship to leave out there. Further, the battleship played a vital role in the Pacific as an artillery platform to support marine landings as well as a very good floating hospital as well as a floating machine shop. By no means were they worthless boats. IIRC even in the Vietnam (Korean?) war we once got the Vietnamese (or Koreans) to the negotiating table by parking two battleships offshore of them. They all of a sudden were willing to talk but ONLY if the battleships were withdrawn. In the first Desert Storm Iraqi's surrendered to an unmanned spy plane. They knew the spy plane was used as a spotter for the battleship's guns and those guns were so feared they actually surrendered to what amounted to little more than a model airplane.

Perhaps the battleship has no place in the modern world but it certainly was not a useless ship.

[Tranquilis]

Heh, so to borrow the dinosaur analogy from earlier in the thread, the Dinosaur was crippled by a Pterasaur?
More or less, yeah.

Understanding, of course, that the Bismark wasn't yet a dinosaur, just fast on the way to becoming one.
One lesson from this is that obsolescent =! obsolete. Elderly, outdated platforms can still do serious damage, if they're used intelligently and courageously.

[David Simmons]

I ve read that both "Graf Spee" and "Bismarck" were scuttled by their crews after getting hit by numerous british ships. But amazingly none of these pocket battleshpis were in a sinking stage. It was mentioned that crews of these ships scuttled the ships in order to save the building secrets! On the other hand british battle cruiser "Hood" simply exploded and broken in half and went under Bismarck's salvos..

Did german knew a technologically advanced way of builiding ships that other nations are not aware of at that time? If so , is that technology is available for the current ship builders?The Graf Spee was a heavily armed and armored ship somewhere between a battleship and a heavy cruiser. She carried 11 in. guns. In the original battle she was fighting a British heavy cruiser, the Exeter with 8 in. guns and two light cruisers (one was Ajax and I don't remember the other) with 6 in. guns.

The Exeter was set afire fairly early on and the battle then was against the two 6 in. gun cruisers. Graf Spee's guns outranged the British by quite a margin and she could have stood off and destroyed them without a lot of trouble. She didn't do that and was finally forced to take refuge in Montevideao, Uraguay. By the time the Uraguay government forced her to leave quite a British force awaited, including the battleship Barham, and she was scuttled rather than go out and be sunk. Graf Spee was far from a super ship and in fact was most valuable as a commerce raider. In a formal naval battle with battleships involved she would have really been just a heavier than heavy cruiser.

[DrDeth]

If a battleship was prepared for battle, with all it's compartments sealed and watertight doors closed- it was almsot impossible to sink. When you read about battleships being sunk easily, they were almost always caught by suprise- such as at Pearl harbor. This goes for just about all the "modern" Dreadnaughts- but yes, the germans took this to an extreme.

The Graf Spee used up most of her ammo in that battle, and the Captain really thought there were major British forces waiting just outside.

[Raguleader]

If a battleship was prepared for battle, with all it's compartments sealed and watertight doors closed- it was almsot impossible to sink. When you read about battleships being sunk easily, they were almost always caught by suprise- such as at Pearl harbor. This goes for just about all the "modern" Dreadnaughts- but yes, the germans took this to an extreme.

Even at Pearl Harbor, the battleships that were able to get their AA guns into the fight held their own to varying degrees. Where their troubles got really bad was when they'd loose fire coordination, ie: when the gunnery officer would get killed or they'd loose communcations between the gunners due to battle damage. Once they stopped coordinating their fire with eachother, the AA became increasingly ineffective against their attackers.

This was before they refitted the battleships later on in the war to become floating AA platforms bristling with .50 calibre, 20mm, 40mm, and 5 inch guns capable of building a wall of steel in any direction they wanted (Except, in the case of the Iowa class battleships, straight ahead :smack: )

Nowadays, when you can cram anti-ship missiles onto something as small as a fighter jet and hit the enemy from hundreds of miles away from your fleet, the raw firepower of a battleship just isn't valid to the battlefield, just as the introduction of the powered turret and steam engine made ships with hundred-gun broadsides unnecessary.

[Northern Piper]

If a battleship was prepared for battle, with all it's compartments sealed and watertight doors closed- it was almsot impossible to sink.So you're saying it was a type of Batship. :D

[engineer_comp_geek]

There's been some debate over the fate of the Bismarck. The British claimed they sunk it, and the Germans claimed they scuttled it. Ballard (the same guy who found the Titanic) found evidence to support the German claim but I don't believe that the research team ever came out and claimed that it was certain that the ship was scuttled. There's also some evidence that even if they did scuttle the ship, there's a good chance it was going to sink anyway, just not as fast.

[Hypno-Toad]

This is only tangetial to the thread, but here is a link to the Virtual Tour site of the HMS Belfast. She's the last of the WWII cruisers and is currently moored on the south bank of the Thames near the Tower Bridge.

http://www.hmsbelfasttours.org.uk/

[Rick]

From here (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq118-2.htm) By 1000 all the Bismarck's 15-inch guns were out of action, and fire from the secondary battery was spasmodic. The Rodney, King George V, and the Norfolk, which had joined the action after spotting from the flanks, fired their last salvos front a range of only 8,300 yards. At 1010, out of the Bismarck's entire armament, only one anti-aircraft gun remained workable, The ship was a wreck, on fire fore and aft, and wallowing heavily. The British commander in chief broke off the gun action at 1022. The cruiser Dorsetshire then fired three torpedoes into the Bismarck, and she sank at 1037.
and From HMS Hood .com (http://www.hmshood.com/ship/history/bmhood/BMHood.html) During the morning of 27th May, a combined British force, led by King George V and Rodney, finally caught and engaged Bismarck. The German battleship, its rudders jammed, was unable to manoeuvre effectively. Neither she nor her tired crew was in peak condition at this point. The result of this was that in the ensuing action, Bismarck was quickly overwhelmed. She did manage to straddle both Rodney and King George V early on, but scored no direct hits. The British made quick work of the crippled ship and it was soon a slowly sinking, blazing wreck. At approximately 1039 hours, it was at last sent to the bottom by combination of the torpedoes of H.M.S. Dorsetshire, and earlier German scuttling efforts. Who actually sank the ship is a moot point in that by this point she was already defeated and permanently out of action. (bolding and underlining mine)

[Tranquilis]

The British claimed they sunk it, and the Germans claimed they scuttled it. Both statements may be literally true - A slowly sinking ship sped to the bottom by scuttling, or a scuttled ship sped to the bottome by guns and torpedoes.

The exact sequence of events will likely never be known.

[Speaker for the Dead]

By the time the Uraguay government forced her to leave quite a British force awaited, including the battleship Barham, and she was scuttled rather than go out and be sunk. Graf Spee was far from a super ship and in fact was most valuable as a commerce raider. In a formal naval battle with battleships involved she would have really been just a heavier than heavy cruiser.

I've heard that the British tricked the captain of the Graf Spee into believing that the taskforce awaiting the ship was much larger than it actually was. Didn't he commit suicide after the scuttling?

[silenus]

I've heard that the British tricked the captain of the Graf Spee into believing that the taskforce awaiting the ship was much larger than it actually was. Didn't he commit suicide after the scuttling?

Yep. Captain Hans Langdorff shot himself 2 days after the Graf Spee was scuttled. Hitler was furious about the scuttling, so Langdorff couldn't go home again. He took what he felt was the honorable way out.

[AtomAnt]

Going slightly off the topic , what's the difference between Pocket battleships and Battleships that german used against british convoys and the battleships, destroyers british used to protect the same ? Why did brtish feared these battleships more than anything at that time? Gun for Gun couldnt a british ship take on a german ship?

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

The way pocket battleships were described was: Anything that could outgun it, couldn't outrun it. And anything that could outrun it, didn't want to.

[Raguleader]

Going slightly off the topic , what's the difference between Pocket battleships and Battleships that german used against british convoys and the battleships, destroyers british used to protect the same ? Why did brtish feared these battleships more than anything at that time? Gun for Gun couldnt a british ship take on a german ship?

A pocket battleship is, IIRC, a sort of Really Heavy Cruiser. Same displacement as a Heavy Cruiser, but with bigger guns. Designed to outgun any cruiser that tried to take it on, and outrun any battleship or battlecruiser that went after it. German battleships were, as mentioned before, better protected against battle damage due to the fact that the German navy was substantially smaller, and thus, spent more on each ship to make it more survivable than the British could afford to spend on their battleships. In the case of the Bismark, it was one of the largest (if not The largest) and most modern battleships afloat.

A destroyer is an entirely different kind of ship when compared to Pocket Battleships, Heavy Cruisers, Battlecruisers and Battleships. While Battleships are ships of the line, and the various kinds of cruisers and pocket battleships are self-capable fighting ships, a Destroyer is essentially a cannon fodder warship, originally designed to protect the important warships or merchant ships from gunboats, torpedo boats, and later on, submarines. While these things could be devestatingly powerful against a smaller combatant, they had little chance of success trying to fight something like a Battleship without similarly big guns to protect them. They could be used defensively as screening ships, or offensively as commerce raiders or as a means of harassing larger warships during large battles.

[Rodd Hill]

The greatest fear of the British in re German pocket battleships and heavy cruisers was the danger they posed to the Atlantic lifeline. Firstly, to the escorted convoys of war materiel; generally these were escorted by a very small force of corvettes and destroyers, with maybe one or two cruisers.

A troopship convoy (with the exclusion of the great liners) would have a bigger escort, up to and including a battleship or battlecruisers--but of course, this was a big tie-up of valuable naval power.

The biggest nightmare was the scenario of the Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth--which nearly always proceeded alone on the Atlantic run, relying on their great speed to avoid trouble with U-boats--being attacked by a German capital ship; an entire US or Canadian infantry division being lost at sea at one go didn't bear thinking about.

[David Simmons]

I've heard that the British tricked the captain of the Graf Spee into believing that the taskforce awaiting the ship was much larger than it actually was. Didn't he commit suicide after the scuttling?Very possible. My information was recalled from news reports at the time of the battle. Those news reports would have repeated any British false information, of course.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Nowadays, when you can cram anti-ship missiles onto something as small as a fighter jet and hit the enemy from hundreds of miles away from your fleet, the raw firepower of a battleship just isn't valid to the battlefield, just as the introduction of the powered turret and steam engine made ships with hundred-gun broadsides unnecessary.

Battleships would stand up to most modern antiship missiles much better than you might think. Battleships were truly the toughest things afloat. IIRC the Bismarck took something on the order of 300-400 direct hits as well as at least two torpedoes before she was sunk and, as mentioned, even then she was hanging in there and likely sped along by scuttling efforts. Sure...after all that it was smoking wreck even if floating but still gives you a sense of just how astonishingly tough they were. Anything short of a Russian Shipwreck missile would not have much effect against a battleship.

Granted the battleship's days as a ship v. ship platform were over but it still had other uses.

[Raguleader]

Battleships would stand up to most modern antiship missiles much better than you might think. Battleships were truly the toughest things afloat. IIRC the Bismarck took something on the order of 300-400 direct hits as well as at least two torpedoes before she was sunk and, as mentioned, even then she was hanging in there and likely sped along by scuttling efforts. Sure...after all that it was smoking wreck even if floating but still gives you a sense of just how astonishingly tough they were. Anything short of a Russian Shipwreck missile would not have much effect against a battleship.

Granted the battleship's days as a ship v. ship platform were over but it still had other uses.

True, they're very survivable, but the simple fact is, you can load up a bunch of cheaper ships with missiles and just hammer away at a battleship before she can bring her guns into play. Of course, any battleship in a modern navy has it's OWN missiles to lob back, so the final straw becomes money. I *think* the US Navy still has one battleship, but if we do, it's kept in mothballs except during time of war, in which case it's refitted with modern technology and sent out to sea. They're just too expensive to run all the time.

[Declan]

Battleships would stand up to most modern antiship missiles much better than you might think. Battleships were truly the toughest things afloat.

Its not as much missiles ,as it still torpedos that are the nemisis of the battlewagon. While you could probably lob a lot of harpoons at the IOWA, two mark 48 torpedos will probably kill it.

Torpedo strikes at the time , were against the water line , or just below it , today , the torps will detonate right underneath the keel , lifting it up , and letting the keel snap.

Declan

[Antonius Block]

I *think* the US Navy still has one battleship, but if we do, it's kept in mothballs except during time of war, in which case it's refitted with modern technology and sent out to sea. They're just too expensive to run all the time.I can't speak for other classes, but there are two Iowa-class battleships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship) still in the US Navy Reserve Fleet.

The USS Iowa (BB-61) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_%28BB-61%29) itself is currently part of the Mothball Fleet in Suisun Bay, north-east of San Francisco. A Terraserver aerial photo (Feb 2004) is here (http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=4&S=9&Z=10&X=5791&Y=42137&W=3) .

The USS Wisconsin (BB-64) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wisconsin_%28BB-64%29) is berthed at Norfolk, VA, where:her weather decks are open to the public, but the ship is still owned by the Navy and is considered part of the mothball fleet.

[Polycarp]

I believe it was the USS New Jersey which was recommissioned twice, the first time in the Vietnam War, where it was used to bombard coastal (and a short distance inland) VC positions, to good effect.

For the record, there is still officially one battleship on the Navy's roster of active ships, though that is a matter of sentiment rather than military force: the USS Arizona was never decommissioned, and is still officially on the rolls. The USS Texas is the flagship of the Texas State Navy (presumably USNR), though like the Arizona and many another battleship it is now a memorial site rather than an active seagoing vessel.

[Metacom]

Torpedo strikes at the time , were against the water line , or just below it , today , the torps will detonate right underneath the keel , lifting it up , and letting the keel snap.
Whah?

I thought that, at least after the problems with magnetic detonators had been worked out in the early years of the war, torpedos were usually set to detonate under the keel? Or was this specific to U-boats and surface ship and airplane launched torpedos ran shallower?

[carnivorousplant]

the Germans claimed they scuttled it.

Would so many crew have been lost if it was scuttled? Is the procedure to have most of the crew abandon ship and then scuttle?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Whah?

I thought that, at least after the problems with magnetic detonators had been worked out in the early years of the war, torpedos were usually set to detonate under the keel? Or was this specific to U-boats and surface ship and airplane launched torpedos ran shallower?

WWII torpedoes could detonate under the keel and that was the preferred shot. Of course, subs and torps and all that back then were not as sophisticated as today so getting the under-the-keel shot was a much more dicey affair than it is today.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Would so many crew have been lost if it was scuttled? Is the procedure to have most of the crew abandon ship and then scuttle?

By the time the Bismarck was at the point where a command to scuttle it was givven it had been pretty well pounded. I would think the command ot scuttle the ship would be given along with the command to abandon ship but the chaotic hell that must've been the Bismarck at that point who knows how it would have played out?

[audit1]

I believe it was the USS New Jersey which was recommissioned twice, the first time in the Vietnam War, where it was used to bombard coastal (and a short distance inland) VC positions, to good effect.

For the record, there is still officially one battleship on the Navy's roster of active ships, though that is a matter of sentiment rather than military force: the USS Arizona was never decommissioned, and is still officially on the rolls. The USS Texas is the flagship of the Texas State Navy (presumably USNR), though like the Arizona and many another battleship it is now a memorial site rather than an active seagoing vessel.


The status of the ARIZONA: Arizona was stricken from the naval register in 1942. SHe is not a commisioned US NAVY SHIP.

[Whack-a-Mole]

While you could probably lob a lot of harpoons at the IOWA, two mark 48 torpedos will probably kill it.


Probably true but then that is probably true of most anything you put two Mk-48 torps under (a carrier might survive that). A BB would be part of a battlegroup just like a carrier is. Frankly, it would probably be in a carrier battlegroup. Any sub captain that sees a carrier and a battleship will prefer to shoot the carrier anyway. Of course, getting in position to launch torpedoes is not so easy and few navies could manage it these days. Not saying a BB can't be sunk...just harder than I think most people suspect. Everyone sees something like the USS Stark (http://navysite.de/ffg/FFG31.HTM) (link shows battle damage) that was nearly sunk by a single Exocet missile and assume that is what happens to everything hit by a missile these days. A battleship would almost certainly still be combat effective after a single Exocet hit (depends where it hits I guess) as opposed to the USS Stark coming an inch away from sinking.

[Raguleader]

I believe it was the USS New Jersey which was recommissioned twice, the first time in the Vietnam War, where it was used to bombard coastal (and a short distance inland) VC positions, to good effect.

For the record, there is still officially one battleship on the Navy's roster of active ships, though that is a matter of sentiment rather than military force: the USS Arizona was never decommissioned, and is still officially on the rolls. The USS Texas is the flagship of the Texas State Navy (presumably USNR), though like the Arizona and many another battleship it is now a memorial site rather than an active seagoing vessel.

As was mentioned earlier, the Arizona was stricken from the naval roster. As for the USS Texas (BB-35 I think), that's an interesting thing. Far as I can tell, the Texas State Navy (AKA the Third Texas Navy) is more of an honorary thing than anything else. It also includes the USS Lexington (CV-16), the USS San Jacinto (Nuclear attack sub in the US Navy) and a couple of other ships. All the ships in the Texas Navy are either commisioned US Navy ships or Floating Museums. Basically we did this because Texas is apparantly allowed to have it's own armed forces, and we have no particular need to actually *have* our own armed forces. (Unlike Japan, Texas isn't afflicted with giant monster attacks, just tornados.)

Another interesting example of reeeealy old ships on the US Navy roster, check out the USS Constitution, one of the original US Navy heavy frigates from the early 1800's. Oldest commisioned warship afloat. (Used to be the HMS Victory that had that distinction, but it doesn't float anymore, I think it's in drydock permanently.) IIRC, the Constitution is sailed out into the harbor once every 6 months or something like that so they can turn her around and sun her evenly (so as not to have the paint on one side be a lot lighter, I suppose)

[Hypno-Toad]

Another interesting example of reeeealy old ships on the US Navy roster, check out the USS Constitution, one of the original US Navy heavy frigates from the early 1800's. Oldest commisioned warship afloat. (Used to be the HMS Victory that had that distinction, but it doesn't float anymore, I think it's in drydock permanently.) IIRC, the Constitution is sailed out into the harbor once every 6 months or something like that so they can turn her around and sun her evenly (so as not to have the paint on one side be a lot lighter, I suppose)

HMS Victory is definately in drydock. I've walked her deck. Although she is not "commissioned" per se, there is still an admiral serving aboard her. Quite an honor posting. I remember seeing a couple of reserved parking spots for the Captain and XO of the Victory near the drydock.

[wevets]

For what it's worth, this wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hood_%2851%29) casts some doubt about whether the deck armor played a role or not in the destruction of HMS Hood in 1941. Either way, a German shell got into where it really wasn't supposed to be.

The British seem to have had considerable trouble with either shells or flash passing into the magazines of their capital ships in WWI and WWII. Flash fires penetrating down lifts to the magazines was a major problem at the Battle of Jutland and caused the loss of at least two British battlecruisers there, while German ships had much better protection to prevent this kind of fire spreading and exploding stored shells and powder. In this aspect, German design and use of their capital ships seems to have made them more survivable than British capital ships.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Do not minimize the importance of the battleship in WWII. Yes, the airplane showed how vulnerable such monsters were to gnats but the battleship still was a very feared opponent. Just look at how ape s**t the British went going after Bismarck. I forget the total order of battle but the British threw what seems like the better part of the Atlantic fleet to chase down Bismarck...it was just too scary a ship to leave out there. In May of 1941 the war had just begun
The Germans had the biggest ship that had the biggest guns
The Bismarck was the fastest ship that ever sailed the sea
On her decks were guns as big as steers and shells as big as trees...Sink The Bismarck Lyrics Artist(Band):Johnny Horton (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Sink-The-Bismarck-lyrics-Johnny-Horton/65C9EACCFC5F91FA48256E2A001278C1)

[AndrewL]

A friend of mine claims that the exocet and similar modern missiles are geared towards modern warships, which have little to no armor. Thus they have little actual explosive and do damage mostly by impact and the burning residual propellant. He claims that an Iowa-class battleship, with armor designed to defend against a battleship's guns, would barely have its paint scratched by most modern anti-ship missiles. Is there any truth to this?

[tomndebb]

Would so many crew have been lost if it was scuttled? Is the procedure to have most of the crew abandon ship and then scuttle?Actually, a lot of the crew was in the water. Unfortunately, the Germans had sent several submarines out to render whatever assistance they could to the Bismarck (even if it was just avenging her). The Brits knew of the oncoming submarine presence due to intercepted messages and the fact that they had broken the German code, so the Dorsetshire and Suffolk(?), who were picking up German sailors, were ordered to leave the area and the subs did not arrive until most of the crew had drowned in the frigid May waters.

Ballard's survey of the hull indicated that there were too few holes to have caused the sinking--meaning that the German stories of scuttling were probably true--but the ship had been on fire from bow to stern and she would have sunk, eventually, unless she could have been brought under tow and the fires extinguished, something the Germans did not have the equipment to perform.

One interesting phenomenon: Ballard discovered that the fantail had broken off completely. During the war, the Prinz Eugen (a cruiser built as a smaller scale version of the Bismarck and Tirpitz), had suffered the loss of its fantail in the Baltic. The separation of the fantail on the Bismarck indicates that there was a serious design flaw. Had the Bismarck not been stopped when she was, there is an excellent chance that she would have lost her fantail and rudder at some future encounter and eventually suffered the same fate of being pounded to embers while unable to navigate.

[DrDeth]

In May of 1941 the war had just begun
The Germans had the biggest ship that had the biggest guns
The Bismarck was the fastest ship that ever sailed the sea
On her decks were guns as big as steers and shells as big as trees...:Johnny Horton[/URL]

What's weird is that he got that backwards. It should be "guns as big as trees and shells as big as steers."

And of course, several British ships- and American battlewagons had- had 16" guns (as compared to the Bismark's "mere" 15")*. Not to mention, many ships were faster, and the Hood was bigger. What the Bismark was - was TOUGH.

Later, the Japanese had a couple with 18" guns. The British had experimented with a couple of 18" gun ships, but found them impractical.

[Raguleader]

What's weird is that he got that backwards. It should be "guns as big as trees and shells as big as steers."

And of course, several British ships- and American battlewagons had- had 16" guns (as compared to the Bismark's "mere" 15")*. Not to mention, many ships were faster, and the Hood was bigger. What the Bismark was - was TOUGH.

Later, the Japanese had a couple with 18" guns. The British had experimented with a couple of 18" gun ships, but found them impractical.

Didn't the American BB's with teh 16 inch guns come later in the war though? I think most of the ships around the time of Pearl Harbor were WWI Dreadnought type ships with guns ranging from 12 inches to 14 inches. (Speaking of WWI battleships, check out the gun arrangement on the USS Texas (BB-35) it's just... weird. The way that one turret can ONLY fire to the sides because it would either hit the superstructure or the turret aft of it if it tried to fire forward or backwards.)

Also, the Japanese Superbattleships, the Musashi and the Yamato, were interesting, but effectively obsolete in the Pacific war. Don't recall the exact fate of the Yamato (aside from it being sunk by naval bombers) but I think the Musashi basically got swarmed, with literally hundreds of torpedo bombers and dive bombers going at it until it sank. Very impressive ships, but I don't recall that the Japanese ever got to use them in the kind of conventional line-of-battle the Japanese probably had in mind when they built the things, though I recall reading that they made good HQ ships for large fleet ops because their superstructures could mount some impressive radio rigs.

[tomndebb]

The USS Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey, and Wisconsin were all built later in the war, but the U.S. had a number of slightly smaller battleships armed with nine 16" guns at the time the Bismarck was scaring people.

As to the relative merits of the various weapons, the Build a Better Battleship (http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/Features/BuildBetter.htm) web site begins with the premise that the Iowa class was the "perfect" blend of required features, then compares them against all their potential (if hypothetical) opponents.

[Declan]

Probably true but then that is probably true of most anything you put two Mk-48 torps under (a carrier might survive that). A BB would be part of a battlegroup just like a carrier is.

Back in the eightys when the IOWA's were re-commed , the basic reason was to form surface action groups, basically swap out the carrier for the battlewagon, other than the NGFS , the battlewagons biggest asset was actually their speed. After 50 or so years ,they are still one of the fastest ships afloat , having to keep up with the carriers in WW2.




Frankly, it would probably be in a carrier battlegroup. Any sub captain that sees a carrier and a battleship will prefer to shoot the carrier anyway.

Well , two things . One is that the carrier will most likely be a phib like the saipan class or the Iwo jima class, rather than the nimitz class , and the other is dependent on the subs tactical solution.

With the fleet wartime separation , the only shot that sub commander may get , is the battlewagon , then he is gonna take it and become flaming datum for the asw troops.

Declan

[Declan]

Whah?

I thought that, at least after the problems with magnetic detonators had been worked out in the early years of the war, torpedos were usually set to detonate under the keel? Or was this specific to U-boats and surface ship and airplane launched torpedos ran shallower?

Well, with Mark 48 adcaps , you can swim the torpedo under the vessel you want to sink. And yes , the yamato for expample took something like 30 aerial launched torps and still limped along, most ships of the line were armored with a waterline belt that was intended to defeat motor torpedo boats , so air dropped torps would not have the punch to defeat such a belt.

Declan

[Lute Skywatcher]

In May of 1941 the war had just begun
The Germans had the biggest ship that had the biggest guns
The Bismarck was the fastest ship that ever sailed the sea
On her decks were guns as big as steers and shells as big as trees...Sink The Bismarck Lyrics Artist(Band):Johnny Horton (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Sink-The-Bismarck-lyrics-Johnny-Horton/65C9EACCFC5F91FA48256E2A001278C1)Excuse me, tom, but I did not post the whole song.

[EnderWay]

The "Hood" as I recall from a "History Channel" (AKA W.W.II or Hitler Channel) did
not close the fire control doors located a few deck below the gun turret. These
doors kept the fire and explosion from traveling down the gun turret workings
and loading area and spreading to the ammo magazine/storage. They had opted
for this risk for quicker loading and firing. The Brits gambled and paid the piper!
One direct hit on a gun turret and the explosion traveled right to the magazine!
I recall them saying the whole ship jumped 6 inches out of the water. Damn!

Also, from the "Hitler Channel" ...

The "Bismarck" managed to escape, at first, from the British fleet chasing her. Then a "Swordfish" found her and with a luck shot hit its rudder. She was left with the rudder jammed at an angle. Doing circles she was a doomed ship. The Brits came in for the kill! And yea, there is a controversy over the last moments and scuttling. Seem to me like it hardly matters. The Swordfish, having proved itself as mentioned in previous posts by being amazing difficult to hit by being so slow (go figure) went into major production by the Allies and served well in both theaters.

Also, if I recall correctly, the Hood was sunk at the beginning of the battel that the
Bismarck has first escaped from! The Bismarck tried to sneak off by itself!

[Quartz]

A friend of mine claims that the exocet and similar modern missiles are geared towards modern warships, which have little to no armor. Thus they have little actual explosive and do damage mostly by impact and the burning residual propellant. He claims that an Iowa-class battleship, with armor designed to defend against a battleship's guns, would barely have its paint scratched by most modern anti-ship missiles. Is there any truth to this?
Your friend has it partially the wrong way around. Exocet missiles do have warheads and do explode, as a brief study of the Falklands war will show (Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyor).

[carnivorousplant]

Your friend has it partially the wrong way around. Exocet missiles do have warheads and do explode, as a brief study of the Falklands war will show (Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyor).

I believe the missile passed through the superstructure of Sheffieldwithout exploding, causing a fire. Can't find a cite, but it described as a fire (http://www.guardian.co.uk/falklands/story/0,11707,660281,00.html#article_continue) rather than an explosion.

The missile apparently struck the control room buried deep in the superstructure and fire broke out. When it became clear that the fire was out of control the crew abandoned her.

[tomndebb]

The "Hood" as I recall from a "History Channel" (AKA W.W.II or Hitler Channel) did not close the fire control doors located a few deck below the gun turret. I'd be curious as to the source of this claim. With only three survivors, (presumably, none from the area surrounding the magazines), who would have known of this event?
The Swordfish, having proved itself as mentioned in previous posts by being amazing difficult to hit by being so slow (go figure) went into major production by the Allies and served well in both theaters.Actually, while the Swordfish did continue in production, it had nothing to do with its success against the Bismarck. The lightweight, slow landing Swordfish was ideal for employment on "jeep" carriers as anti-submarine weapons in defense of convoys (several had been fitted for ASW work prior to the Bismarck battle). I am not sure that any Swordfish even carried torpedoes in any battle following the sinking of the Bismarck, although I would think that in the effort to stop the German "Channel Run" they may have been so armed.
Also, if I recall correctly, the Hood was sunk at the beginning of the battel that the Bismarck has first escaped from! The Bismarck tried to sneak off by itself! I'm not exactly sure what you intend by this statement. The Bismarck was escorted by only the Prinz Eugen. After the Hood blew up, the Prince of Wales continued the fight for a few minutes, despite suffering hits on its bridge and suffering problems with its turrets. The Prince of Wales broke off the engagement when it was clear that it could not continue the fight. Since the Bismarck had been sent out to destroy commerce, not play tough guy with capital ships, the Bismarck's proper action (and Lutjen's direct orders) when the Prince of Wales turned away was to permit it to go--particularly since the Bismarck had, itself, suffered battle damage and since the British cruisers could have come to the aid of the Prince of Wales, imposing more risk on the Bismarck. Rather than "sneak off by itself," the Bismarck continued on its original course into the Alantic, later sending the Prinz Eugen home alone because the cruiser was going to run out of fuel and the Germans were not sure that they could rendezvous with their supply ship--and in fact, they never did.

[AndrewL]

Your friend has it partially the wrong way around. Exocet missiles do have warheads and do explode, as a brief study of the Falklands war will show (Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyor).
Yes, but the warhead in the Exocet is tiny as compared to the explosive charge carried in a battleship's shells. My understanding is that the Sheffield was, like nearly all modern warships, very lightly armored as compared to a WWII style battleship, and that modern anti-ship missiles were geared primarily towards destroying lightly armored targets.

[Whack-a-Mole]

My understanding is that the Sheffield was, like nearly all modern warships, very lightly armored as compared to a WWII style battleship, and that modern anti-ship missiles were geared primarily towards destroying lightly armored targets.

That has been my understanding too. Battleships were fantastically expensive ships to build (few countries could afford even one...the material outlay alone could consume a massive portion of a nation's output...output that could be used for tanks and planes and so on) and with the advent of the airplane and sub they were just too vulnerable to be worthwhile. Battleships were stunningly tough targets to sink but their high value made them a prime target. I mentioned earlier what the Brits threw at the Bismarck and decided to look it up to be more sepcific. During Operation Rheinübung near 100 ships (http://www.kbismarck.com/buquepari.html) were involved in one way or another. The British threw 9 battleships, 2 carriers, 4 heavy cruisers, 10 light cruisers, 33 destroyers and 8 subs at the Bismarck. They were not all present at the end but still gives you an idea of just how badly the Brits wanted that ship.

Considering the battleship was initially thought of as a ship v. ship fighter it was kind of hampered from the outset because they were just too damn valuable to risk on much of anything but sure-things. Oddly though the weapons of today are made for lightly armored ships so a battleship is near immune to what is out there. Only the Russian shipwreck missile (meant to kill carriers I think) might be a threat. Subs would get them too of course but not many navies exist anymore that have a sub fleet capable of threatening a battlegroup.

[Raguleader]

Subs would get them too of course but not many navies exist anymore that have a sub fleet capable of threatening a battlegroup.

And of course, most navies I can think of that can still afford to float a Battleship out into a warzone can also afford sufficient anti-sub resources (in the form of destroyers, frigates, ASW Helos, and of course, their own attack subs) to make any sub-based attack rather tricky (though certainly more likely to suceed than, say a surface warfare group based around some cruisers and destroyers.

[Quartz]

Yes, but the warhead in the Exocet is tiny as compared to the explosive charge carried in a battleship's shells. My understanding is that the Sheffield was, like nearly all modern warships, very lightly armored as compared to a WWII style battleship

Yes indeed.