Re: Bismarck and her contemporaries by Bgile » Wed 5:50 pm There seems to always be a significant number of duds when heavy armor is encountered. However, a dud can sometimes be even more damaging than a bullet which explodes. For example, suppose a shell failed to explode and instead was deflected through the bottom of the ship?
Bismarck construction flaws by Monitor » Fri 5:50 pm This subject is often discussed in military and naval circles. Can somebody enumerate Bismarck construction flaws and their possible impact on the ship's final demise?
Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn by Antonio Bonomi » Wed 4:17 am
Bismarck at DS after the second turn - Page 16 - Naval History Forums
Bismarck´s steam plant was a high temperature/high pressure on, at 58 kg/cm2, while the American´s was a little lower at 40 kg/cm2. Bismarck´s steam would attain a higher steam jet velocity, what would need a matching high rpm turbine for efficiency, which Bismarck´s single reduction gearing could not reach.
Bismarck straddled Rodney at 3rd salvo, around 8:51, causing minor splinter damage, followed by an immediate course alteration performed by Rodney (slightly to the N-E), and by KGV (slightly to the S-E).
Re: Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota by lwd » Mon 5:29 pm Usually the term is used in reference to the plane of the material under discussion. If you are talking about vertical armor normal means perpendicular to the vertical or horizontal. Likewise for horizontal armor. Oblique is used similarly. Thorsten Wahl Senior Member ...
Bismarck against BB-57 South Dakota - Page 31 - Naval History Forums
Bismarck analysis Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc. Moderator:Bill Jurens 62 posts Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next alecsandros Senior Member ...
Also Bismarck´s difference between standard and full displacement was of just 9,200 tons (22% of her standard displacement) while Titanic´s was of 21,428 tons (86% !!!!). It´s almost twice her own displacement. What´s that due for: the coal?
Re: Bismarck/Tirpitz = most powerfull European battleships by Dave Saxton » Tue 2:06 pm In my opinion "Weight of Broadside" is meaningless in 20th century naval warefare. It may have been meaningful in Lord Nelson's time but by WWII weight of shells and number fired per salvo could hardly be a reliable measure of firepower.
Lest we forget, Sink the Bismarck was based on the 1959 historical novel Hunting the Bismarck by C.S.Forester. Forester made no pretense about it being anything more than a novel.
Bismarck's draft at 49406 tonnes = 10.2 meters. so we subtract 170cm from this @ 48.437 tonnes/cm = 8234 tonnes or 49406 -8234 = 41172 tonnes, which is less than I thought, but if we consider that Scharnhorst could make 29 knots with ~118000 shp, @ 39000 tonnes, this actually fits, considering the poorer L/B of Bismarck, so my estimate above, is a bit optimistic. Again, this only makes sense ...