Posted on 04/15/2005 2:27:55 AM PDT by Zero Sum
The reason so many shells were involved, was because most of them went in the drink, not the Bismarck.
With guided sea-skimming missiles, fewer weapons and hits are needed.
I just don't understand why so many are so enamored of a platform with such a short stand-off to deploy its main weapons system. This is the core of the inherent superiority of carriers - keep the high-value platform far away, and send the lower-value platforms in harm's way to do the damage.
>>the jets can only hang around for a few minutes,
The Bone and Buff guys would be surprised to hear about that.
I do think we need a modern non-stealth bomb truck, to replace the B-52, but that's another thread.
1 flaw that cost her. She had three screws with two rudders instead of four. If she had four screws and sustained the damage she did from the TP she could have been steered by using the outermost screws and not steam in circles like she did.
The Bone and Buff guys would be surprised to hear about that.
There aren't too many or any sea skimming missiles that have the warhead that can penetrate 16 in of armor plate. They have a hard time dealing with 4 to 6 in as it is.
The stern was fundamentally structurally flawed in construction, and the AAA armament was a disaster, among other things.
There's a reason Bismarck was on the cover of Anthony Preston's "The World's Worst Warships" :-)
Sadly I heard Preston passed yesterday.
Most of those shells were hits and devastated the ships upperworks. Many skipped across the water and still hit but from the side. Ballard's expedition revealed that the Bismarck's citadel was penetrated by only four shells. ( 2 from Prince of Wales/Hood and two from KGV/Rodney engagements)
On the other hand, Bismarck was completely crippled by a lone aerial torpedo (and they have smaller warheads than sub torpedoes).
I already said the stern was poorly designed. Screws and rudders are prominent features of the stern section. Bismarck's AA was typical amongst all capital ships in the early years of WWII and not numerous enough. This lesson was learned by both sides as you saw massive increases in QF AA armament on surface units.
And a couple of 55-gal sized drums filled with explosives will plug up the port.
Who launches aerial torpedoes today? Nobody
Stark?
She's was one of the 75+ frigates, destroyers, and cruisers (Belgrano, ex-USS Phoenix) put out of action by one hit.
It wasn't the Stump, it was the Samuel B. Roberts. The mine broke the keel and the crew literally held the ship together with steel cables.
The Stump was a Spruance-class destroyer, just decommissioned last year.
32 knots isn't slow.
Eh, this is sort of the sub-debate over what a piece of crap the Bismarck was, nothing to do with reactivating the US BBs today :-)
The Bismarck AAA armament was unusually bad even among the other BBs designed at the same time as she was; largely a result of it being a dusted-off WWI design.
Anyway, main point is the steady diet of crappy History Channel "Nazi Superweapon" documentaries has obscured over time what a horrible design Bismarck was.
Yamato sort of has the same problem.
Ironic isn't it. That was the only platform that could get close enough with having a reasonable chance of surviving the encounter. But it was her own kind that finished her off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.