For what it’s worth, this wikipedia article 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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 rather than an explosion.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.