# Unsinkable Bismarck - The truth? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 29, 2005, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339 "2005-06-29T10:27:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/41 "2005-07-01T00:30:51Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/42 "2005-07-01T01:31:04Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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) ---
**Author:** ![AndrewL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AndrewL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndrewL)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/43 "2005-07-01T02:43:41Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/44 "2005-07-01T03:29:32Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/45 "2005-07-01T04:27:29Z")
> [@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…: **Johnny Horton** 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. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/46 "2005-07-01T04:48:15Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/47 "2005-07-01T05:23:26Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/48 "2005-07-01T06:54:54Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/49 "2005-07-01T06:59:58Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/50 "2005-07-01T15:55:43Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![EnderWay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d26b3c/32.png) [@EnderWay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EnderWay)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2005, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/51 "2005-07-03T13:03:45Z")
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! ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2005, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/52 "2005-07-03T15:07:32Z")
> [@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? 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). ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2005, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/53 "2005-07-03T15:20:20Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > 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 _Sheffield_without 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. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2005, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/54 "2005-07-03T18:38:07Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![AndrewL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AndrewL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndrewL)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/55 "2005-07-03T22:15:08Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2005, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/56 "2005-07-03T22:35:38Z")
> [@AndrewL](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/57 "2005-07-04T06:05:22Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2005, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339/58 "2005-07-04T21:35:34Z")
> [@AndrewL](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unsinkable-bismarck-the-truth/310339.md?page=2)