KanColle - Historical references and History discussion

[AC-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Klashikari

Considering the huge difference between the two, I don't see how they could possibily have the same stats.
Yamato had 46cm cannons and a belt armor of 410mm, Bismark "merely" had 38cm and a belt armor of 320mm.

As to why the germans didn't copy the Japanese, most likely due to how they didn't have the same technology and how Yamato is pretty much impracticable. I'm pretty sure the germans didn't share the same philosophy about the battleships anyway.

The armor alone doesn't really say much, german engineering back then was a bit different than on the rest of the world and Bismarck was pretty sturdy.
(Just look at her Wreckage)

It took a very lucky hit (her rudder) as well as 2 entire fleets to put eventually put her down.
Even when her rudder was damaged it took over 250 shells and several torpedoes to make her stop shooting.

Some of the scientists who went down to her sinking spot even discribed the damage to her hull as 'not enough to sink her'. While all of them share the common opinion that the honor of the kill goes to the UK, some of them think it was sabotage rather than the damage she took (so basically they think the German's scuttled her).

Some survivors even claimed to have seen her captain standing at her front when she sunk.

Another huge difference is: Bismarck was actually pretty damaged, she had fractured fuel tanks from her battle with the Prince of Wales and the Hood, while the two fleets attacking her where still in excellent shape.

Basically: Before her sinking Bismarck went through 2 battles.
The sea archelogists mentioned above are debating whether she would have stood still on the sea for at least a day or just a few hours btw.


As to why I think the German's didn't copy the Yamato:

It was definitely not the absence of the necessary technology, given everything that was researched there during the war.
The biggest difference between the two ships is that Bismarck doesn't violate the Washinton Treaty while Yamato does. - So maybe that has something to do with it.

Only thing I am personally surprised is that they didn't give her bigger cannons or at least triple cannons.

[Ithekro]

The Germans had designed the barbettes of their twin 15" gun turrets the same size as their triple 11" gun turret so they could swap out the triple turrets of their battlecruisers with twin 15" turrets once the new guns were built in enough numbers. (The Japanese did something similar with the Mogami-class cruisers. Built them with 155mm guns in triples but swappeed them for 200 mm twins after they left the treaties behind.) The war started about six years before the German Navy might have been somewhat viable as a surface fleet.

Bismarck's successor class, the H-39, was to have twin 16" cannon turrets and still more or less have the silouette of their heavy cruisers and Bismarck.

[bhl88]

Originally Posted by AC-Phoenix

As to why I think the German's didn't copy the Yamato:

It was definitely not the absence of the necessary technology, given everything that was researched there during the war.
The biggest difference between the two ships is that Bismarck doesn't violate the Washinton Treaty while Yamato does. - So maybe that has something to do with it.

Only thing I am personally surprised is that they didn't give her bigger cannons or at least triple cannons.

Just that considering Hitler's love for grand things, I was thinking that he'd say: "MAKE IT BIGGER DAMMIT"

He wanted a Maus after all... A big tank that consumed as much gas as a light cruiser... Was expecting the Bismarck to have a bigger caliber (and they were hiding a lot of stuff before they went to war anyway)

[Ithekro]

Guns like that take steps to make. They had a new 11" gun and barely finished making the 15" guns for Bismarck and Tirpitz. They were planning on going up to 16" on the next ship class (H39). Their "make it bigger" ship, the H44 was to use 21" guns. But that ship would take as much steel as an entire Panzer Division, and they needed Panzer Divisions in Russia rather than one mega battleship in the Baltic or Atlantic. Even that ship would have a hard time using the giant rain gun Schwerer Gustav, a 80cm cannon, (31"). The giant H44 could possibly mount two of those guns in massive single turrets and still be able to use them.

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by AC-Phoenix

The armor alone doesn't really say much, german engineering back then was a bit different than on the rest of the world and Bismarck was pretty sturdy.
(Just look at her Wreckage)

It took a very lucky hit (her rudder) as well as 2 entire fleets to put eventually put her down.
Even when her rudder was damaged it took over 250 shells and several torpedoes to make her stop shooting.

Some of the scientists who went down to her sinking spot even discribed the damage to her hull as 'not enough to sink her'. While all of them share the common opinion that the honor of the kill goes to the UK, some of them think it was sabotage rather than the damage she took (so basically they think the German's scuttled her).

That's mainly because the British actually were too close to Bismarck and as such the angle of impact was unfavourable. Bismarck's armour protection scheme makes it very difficult to penetrate at close distance. However, the very same scheme is vulnerable at long-distance, where the angle is steeper. Had Tovey not chosen to shorten the distance after spotting Bismarck he could've done more damage to her. Moreover Bismarck's underwater protection wasn't too good, as shown by Prince of Wales' hit below the waterline that damaged her fuel tanks. That said, Bismarck was designed for North Sea / North Atlantic battles with the experience of Jutland. And as such the expectation was for the battle distance to be short with low visibility (in the absence of radar based fire control).

In good visibility conditions at long range Bismarck couldn't have realistically stood up to Yamato and with the Americans' radar-based firing control of the late war years she would've had no chance against Iowa.

Some survivors even claimed to have seen her captain standing at her front when she sunk.

That's not very likely. Lindemann and Lütjens were probably killed when the bridge was hit by shells from the British battleships.

Only thing I am personally surprised is that they didn't give her bigger cannons or at least triple cannons.

One is simply experience. The Germans had experience with 38cm guns (the last battleship class completed by Imperial Germany, the Bayern-class, had 38cm ones). Any gun above that size would have to be designed from scratch. And Bismarck's 38cm guns were good compared to contemporary 38cm or 40cm guns. Very accurate, good range and a fast firing cycle. Two is, while they could've gone 40cm, such a gun would have no doubt been a provocation to the Royal Navy. The last point regarding the triple cannons: the Germans feared more guns within a turret would lower the firing cycle (Bismarck's firing cycle of 20 seconds was at least 10 seconds faster than that of any other World War II battleship), more risky to have a higher percentage of the ship's firepower taken out by a single hit and last but not least, four twin turrets allowed for a better field of fire and firing sequence.

[Ithekro]

The Japanese, on the other hand, had continued building warships since the Great War. So they didn't have to start over like the Germans did. They had plans for a 18" gun fast battleship to follow the Tosa and Amagi class ships as part of the 8-8 Plan in the 1920s. The Americans and British had also made 18" guns. The British mounted one (of two planned) on HMS Furious when it was a hybrid Light Battlecruiser/Carrier. It rattled the ship massively, so they took it off and made her a full carrier. The Americans tested there gun, but never really had a design to put it on. They found their upgraded 16" guns with longer barrels and super heavy shells worked better for the limitations American battleships were under at that time (not just Treaty restrictions, but also the limits of the Panama Canal.) The Montana-class would break the Canal limit, but would still have long 16" guns that can fire super heavy shells like the Iowa-class. Just a fourth triple turrets.

Yamato was designed to make sure it could defeat Treaty battleships armed with standard 16" guns or less. It was armored well enough to defeat 15" guns at almost any range. 16" was more difficult, and the Japanese had not planned on the American super heavies, so Iowa-class ships could take on Yamato. But the Iowa-class was not designed to take 18.1" cannon fire in return. It would matter who it first and most consistantly. The Iowas have radar fire control and the Yamato does not. However Yamato's optics are really good, having a debatable near miss that crippled an American ship at Samar from something like 30,000 meters.

Bismarck has no chance against Yamato. On paper at least. On paper, Bismarck has a 10 meter zone around 34,300 meters where Yamato is vulnerable to Bismarck's 15" guns. Other than that, they can't reliably penerate Yamato's armor. Belt or deck. Hitting a 10 meter target at 34,300 meters? That's Skywalker territory. Unless Bismarck wants to get in close. Close in she could probably penetrate Yamato's armor, but then Yamato will have been brutally hammering away at Bismarck the entire way in.

[AC-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

That's mainly because the British actually were too close to Bismarck and as such the angle of impact was unfavourable. Bismarck's armour protection scheme makes it very difficult to penetrate at close distance. However, the very same scheme is vulnerable at long-distance, where the angle is steeper. Had Tovey not chosen to shorten the distance after spotting Bismarck he could've done more damage to her. Moreover Bismarck's underwater protection wasn't too good, as shown by Prince of Wales' hit below the waterline that damaged her fuel tanks. That said, Bismarck was designed for North Sea / North Atlantic battles with the experience of Jutland. And as such the expectation was for the battle distance to be short with low visibility (in the absence of radar based fire control).

The main reason she even sunk were bad decisions by Lütjens, if it wasn't for Lindemann she might have already sunk against Prince of Wales and Hood.

I suggest watching James Cameron's documentation on it + oneothers for more detailed information.
The one from James Cameron is special because he actually shows interior shots of the damaged hull parts, and animated diagrams of where the shells hit actually hit and went through.

Only areally small number of shots actually penetrated the Bismarck's armor and none of them seemed enough to sink her.

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

In good visibility conditions at long range Bismarck couldn't have realistically stood up to Yamato and with the Americans' radar-based firing control of the late war years she would've had no chance against Iowa.).

Uff, if we start with later technology, then I can assure you that the Bismarck would have gotten serious refits by the time she and Yamato would have inevitably clashed.
In the first place Germany put a lot of money into researching new weapons.

A notable refit we can assume Bismarck would have been the strengthening of her stern, as the Prinz Eugen recieved them too.

In the end it still took serious efforts and two fleets to sink her/get tthe German's to scuttle her.

Another thing you shouldn't forget is that the Yamato actually exploded, while the Bismarck's wreck is still in rather good condition with none of the torpedoes actually having damaged her Torpedo bulges.

So yeah all in all the Bismarck would have still had a good chance against Iowa.

Sinking a ship via artillery fire is generally not as easy as people think and takes precise shots to vital points such as the ammunition storage.

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

That's not very likely. Lindemann and Lütjens were probably killed when the bridge was hit by shells from the British battleships.).

Its likely a sailor's myth. However you can somewhat argue it out using 9/11 as an example where people survived being in one of the offices the plane crashed in, or very close to it.
I'm personally more concerned how he would have survived the shockwave than the actual explosion tbh.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Yamato was designed to make sure it could defeat Treaty battleships armed with standard 16" guns or less. It was armored well enough to defeat 15" guns at almost any range. 16" was more difficult, and the Japanese had not planned on the American super heavies, so Iowa-class ships could take on Yamato. But the Iowa-class was not designed to take 18.1" cannon fire in return. It would matter who it first and most consistantly. The Iowas have radar fire control and the Yamato does not. However Yamato's optics are really good, having a debatable near miss that crippled an American ship at Samar from something like 30,000 meters.

TbH I doubt any modern ship could seriously withstand the Yamato's cannons. The USS Nimitz armor is mostly classified though, so thats up to speculation.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Bismarck has no chance against Yamato. On paper at least. On paper, Bismarck has a 10 meter zone around 34,300 meters where Yamato is vulnerable to Bismarck's 15" guns. Other than that, they can't reliably penerate Yamato's armor. Belt or deck. Hitting a 10 meter target at 34,300 meters? That's Skywalker territory. Unless Bismarck wants to get in close. Close in she could probably penetrate Yamato's armor, but then Yamato will have been brutally hammering away at Bismarck the entire way in.

tbH I wouldn't say any of the Iowa/Bismarck/Yamato combination would win against the other.
We don't know what kind of refits the Yamato or the Bismarck would have gotten had they survied their battles.
Well we can from Yamato's plans, in Bismarck's case we only know that she would have gotten a strengthening of her stern, from what the Prinz Eugen got.

Iowa and Yamato are two ships you can actually let run against in Battlestations Pacific, and believe me I rued having gotten oo close to Yamato pretty soon.

Most the Iowa's Class cannons just gave me a note that they were ineffective at all and the only thing I could rely on were her 16 Inch guns.

[Ithekro]

Iowa verses anything is a different matter.

Bismarck doesn't stand a chance against Yamato unless they get really close to each other. The reason being that Yamato's much thicker belt armor can stop a 15 inch shell from penetrating it outside 10,000 meters. And the extremely thick deck armor cannot be penetrated at all by a 15 inch shell (save for that 10 meter wide region around 34,300 meters were it might be able to take out a boiler room by putting a shell down the armored stack). Even with Yamato's inferior armor plating (the Japanese were still using World War One British designed armor plate making methods for extremely thick armor plating, which was inferior to what the British and Americans were using.)

Bismarck's deck armor cannot stop a 18.1 inch shell effectively at longer ranges, nor can the belt armor stop the same shell inside around 15,000 meters. Basically, if the captain of Bismarck wants to get in close enough to be able to damage Yamato, they have to go through Yamato's fire for 20 kilometers or more before even having a remote chance of doing damage.

Night battle though.....

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by AC-Phoenix

I suggest watching James Cameron's documentation on it + oneothers for more detailed information.
The one from James Cameron is special because he actually shows interior shots of the damaged hull parts, and animated diagrams of where the shells hit actually hit and went through.

I know the documentaries. And you fail to get the issue: The British were too close to Bismarck, so the angle the shells hit Bismarck's armour was too flat. Bismarck's armour was designed to withstand exactly those hits. Had they kept a larger distance, the angle would've been much steeper and Bismarck's armour wouldn't have hold up nearly as well against high angled hits. Moreover they could've then also taken advantage of Bismarck's unfavourable deck armour protection. For this purpose I advise you to read about ballistics simulations based on the protection scheme of the armour. In the end it's all about physics:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm

Bismarck's own guns could've penetrated her belt armour at a distance of 29k yards. Whereas the distance needed for Yamato would've been 17.7k and for Iowa around 16.4k.

Bismarck's underwater belt armour was insufficient. The Germans (and to a lesser degree the British) underestimated the dangers of diving shells. Not only did the armour not extend far enough below water, the Germans also didn't put in a space bulkhead to protect the liquid-faced holding bulkhead. Prince of Wales' hit below the waterline that damaged the fuel tanks is a direct result of this neglection.

Uff, if we start with later technology, then I can assure you that the Bismarck would have gotten serious refits by the time she and Yamato would have inevitably clashed.
In the first place Germany put a lot of money into researching new weapons.

We don't assume an engagement in the 1950s. We go by the features the ships had when they were operative at around the same time. Yamato was commissioned in December 1941. They were contemporaries and as such can be compared. Besides, you can't change the core characteristics of a ship, no matter how much you refit. Yamato would've been always superior to Bismarck.

A notable refit we can assume Bismarck would have been the strengthening of her stern, as the Prinz Eugen recieved them too.

I don't know what you've heard. But Prinz Eugen got a new stern because her original one was damaged beyond repair after getting torpedoed by the HMS Trident. Her old stern got completely cut away and not merely strengthened.

Another thing you shouldn't forget is that the Yamato actually exploded, while the Bismarck's wreck is still in rather good condition with none of the torpedoes actually having damaged her Torpedo bulges.

You are completely missing the context. Yamato didn't explode because of a hit. She exploded because of interior fires. And regarding the torpedoes you have to factor in a great deal of additional information. First of all, the number of torpedoes. Bismarck was hit by only about three torpedoes during her final battle. Yamato took eleven confirmed and another two suspected. Then you also have to consider the torpedoes themselves. The British 21 inch MkVII torpedo carried 336kg of TNT. The American 22.5 inch Mk13 had 270kg of Torpex, which is 50% more powerful than TNT.

So yeah all in all the Bismarck would have still had a good chance against Iowa.

I think you should familiarise yourself with Iowa's technical capabilities. American radars were significantly better than anything the Germans (or the Japanese had). Iowa's SG surface radar had a range of 41km. The German FuMO 23 on Bismarck (and the more modern FuMO 26 which was perhaps installed on Tirpitz after a refit) topped out at 25km. Meaning, Iowa could've spotted Bismarck when the latter didn't even have an idea that Iowa was in the vicinity. The fire control of Iowa was also vastly superior. The Americans could blindfire using radar-based fire control, whereas the Germans were reliant on optics the entire war. And as Guadalcanal showed, radar-based firing is superior to optics-based.

So, Iowa could've spotted Bismarck from a far greater distance. She could've also launched salvos more accurately regardless of environmental conditions. So Iowa could've dictated the battle and simply maintained a distance where Bismarck couldn't damage her, but she could damage Bismarck. And Bismarck would've had no way of closing the distance since Iowa was three knots faster. No, unless Iowa suffers a catastrophic failure to her electronics equipment Bismarck would've had no chance in hell.

Sinking a ship via artillery fire is generally not as easy as people think and takes precise shots to vital points such as the ammunition storage.

Whether you actually sink the ship is irrelevant. What is relevant is to render the ship inoperative. Who cares if Bismarck is still floating if she's a smouldering hull incapable of firing back? The Americans at Midway for example didn't sink a single Japanese carrier. The integrity of neither Akagi, nor Kaga, Hiryū or Sōryū was ever compromised. But it didn't matter since they were left as burning husks.

[AC-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

I know the documentaries. And you fail to get the issue: The British were too close to Bismarck, so the angle the shells hit Bismarck's armour was too flat. Bismarck's armour was designed to withstand exactly those hits. Had they kept a larger distance, the angle would've been much steeper and Bismarck's armour wouldn't have hold up nearly as well against high angled hits. Moreover they could've then also taken advantage of Bismarck's unfavourable deck armour protection. For this purpose I advise you to read about ballistics simulations based on the protection scheme of the armour. In the end it's all about physics:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm

Bismarck's own guns could've penetrated her belt armour at a distance of 29k yards. Whereas the distance needed for Yamato would've been 17.7k and for Iowa around 16.4k.

Too long for today, tomorrow.
The same side also shows statistcs that Iowa's and Bismarcks guns could have both penetrated Yamato's deck armor. Bismarcks penetration being slightly below

And I pointed to the documentary because it was generally interesting, due to having interior shots as well as the precise damage done by all weapons inspected from really close range.
in the end a total of over 2000 (2800 I think?) Shots were fired with, according to Wikipedia ~400 hitting, with a penetration of mere 4 shells at the armor belt.

In other worlds less than 1 percent of all fired shots during that battle actually penetrated her hull.
Up until here its still fine, but the english battleships also fired from afar. Even if you take flat 2000 shells fired in total thats a hit rate of less than 1 % on a ship that could only go in circles.
So unless the Bismarck was still pretty good at escaping those shotsm a lot of the hits that were close enough(Edit: as in impacted close enough) to damage her still didn't manage to do so.

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

Bismarck's underwater belt armour was insufficient. The Germans (and to a lesser degree the British) underestimated the dangers of diving shells. Not only did the armour not extend far enough below water, the Germans also didn't put in a space bulkhead to protect the liquid-faced holding bulkhead. Prince of Wales' hit below the waterline that damaged the fuel tanks is a direct result of this neglection.

Which I never doubted. The point that she took several Hundred shells is still a standing fact though.

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

We don't assume an engagement in the 1950s. We go by the features the ships had when they were operative at around the same time. Yamato was commissioned in December 1941. They were contemporaries and as such can be compared. Besides, you can't change the core characteristics of a ship, no matter how much you refit. Yamato would've been always superior to Bismarck.

Superior is not unsinkable, as both ships have proven. I wouldn't want to be on any of the 3 ships if they pointed main batteries at each other. Also the Yamato had refits before Okinawa.

And 1950 or so engagements are exactly what you have to assume in the case of Yamato and Bismarck, as it wouldn't have happened earlier than that.
Examples for things you can change on a ship are for example the radar, and its guns. You can do a lot more things if you get he back into dry dock, the question is just whether cost/expenditure would still make you want to do that instead of building a new one.

And here back to Kancolle - the expenditure might have even been taken.

Again in the end both ships needed considerable effort on the allied side to be taken down.

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

I don't know what you've heard. But Prinz Eugen got a new stern because her original one was damaged beyond repair after getting torpedoed by the HMS Trident. Her old stern got completely cut away and not merely strengthened.

German Ships probably had stern instabilities, which is why they got refits in that regard after Prinz Eugen was damaged.

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

Bismarck was hit by only about three torpedoes during her final battle. Yamato took eleven confirmed and another two suspected. Then you also have to consider the torpedoes themselves. The British 21 inch MkVII torpedo carried 336kg of TNT. The American 22.5 inch Mk13 had 270kg of Torpex, which is 50% more powerful than TNT.

The Yamato class was known for being able to take a lot of torpedoes, I think Musashi holds the record with about 20.

We an't say how many Iowa or Bismarck would have been able to take.

Yamato is generally a class of its own, due to her cannons as well as her tonnage violated the washington treaty (the tonnage part goees for the Bismarck too though)

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

So, Iowa could've spotted Bismarck from a far greater distance. She could've also launched salvos more accurately regardless of environmental conditions. So Iowa could've dictated the battle and simply maintained a distance where Bismarck couldn't damage her, but she could damage Bismarck. And Bismarck would've had no way of closing the distance since Iowa was three knots faster. No, unless Iowa suffers a catastrophic failure to her electronics equipment Bismarck would've had no chance in hell.

Precision aside, that still doesn't warrant 'no chance' the first thing being that both ships had recon planes, so its not like they wouldn't have known the other one was there.
And that is a reason a pointed to Cameron's documentation - Bismarcks planes were unable to launch.
EditDuring their engagement with the british forces of course)

And yes Iowa was/is (depending on how much they butchered her when turning her into a museum), a formidable battleship, which is why I didn't wonder that they used an Iowa Class ship for Battleship

In the end there are many factors deciding a naval battle, so I stick to my comment that I wouldn't want to be on either of those 3 if they had ever clashed.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Iowa verses anything is a different matter.
. And the extremely thick deck armor cannot be penetrated at all by a 15 inch shell (save for that 10 meter wide region around 34,300 meters were it might be able to take out a boiler room by putting a shell down the armored stack). Even with Yamato's inferior armor plating (the Japanese were still using World War One British designed armor plate making methods for extremely thick armor plating, which was inferior to what the British and Americans were using.)

http://www.combinedfleet.com/f_guns.htm
Maybe I'm reading those numbers wrong(Considering that I'm bad at math very possible) - But her deck armor would have gotten penetrated at Bismacks maximum Range which was roughly 40'000 km

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by AC-Phoenix

Too long for today, tomorrow.
The same side also shows statistcs that Iowa's and Bismarcks guns could have both penetrated Yamato's deck armor. Bismarcks penetration being slightly below

[...]

http://www.combinedfleet.com/f_guns.htm
Maybe I'm reading those numbers wrong(Considering that I'm bad at math very possible) - But her deck armor would have gotten penetrated at Bismacks maximum Range which was roughly 40'000 km

To be blunt, it's much more complicated than that. While Bismarck's guns could've penetrated up to 9.3" of armour at maximum range it only factors in a single sheet of that thickness. Ships' deck armour layout, however, is much more complex. Some ships have more than one armoured deck. Then there are also other objects and layers obstructing the path, so even if the initial deck is penetrated the damage will be limited. And Yamato's deck armour was pretty much impenetrable for Bismarck's 38cm guns. There was only a single 6.1x12.2m window where Bismarck's shell could've penetrated and then the damage would be limited to a single boiler room only (there are 12 total in the area). The complete analysis of Yamato's deck armour against Bismarck's 38cm guns is here:

Spoiler for Yamato's deck armour:

The Japanese IJN YAMATO had an armored third deck with a 7.87" (200 mm) flat central deck and a 9.06" (230 mm) sloped outer region that took up about 25% of the deck area from each of the side edges. The main armor deck was set at the top edge of the main armor belt and the slope connecting the 7.87" flat central region to the belt edge was only 8o from the horizontal and lifted the armor deck slightly to allow the boilers and engines more space. This deck was made of Japanese Molybdenum Non-Cemented (MNC) homogeneous armor (slightly inferior to U.S. STS, but not by much) and were totally proof against a deck hit from the German 38 cm gun. Even the funnel uptake armor grating plate, which was drilled through with many holes to allow the stack gases to pass through the armored deck and was thus only equal to about 40% of its actual thickness of solid MNC armor without holes, was 14.96" (380 mm) thick, giving a 6" (152 mm) effective thickness. This grating is surrounded by a cylindrical 1.97" (50 mm) homogeneous CNC armor plate wrapped around the raked funnel base and rising several decks into the superstructure, which is a unique armor arrangement used in these ships only. For the BISMARCK's gun projectile to reach the grating through the weather deck at an obliquity where penetration is worth calculating requires passing through a lot of superstructure bulkheads and decks that would probably reduce the striking velocity somewhat, but this is hard to determine (I am going to use the full 1.97" thickness of the grating shield instead of reducing it by 5%, which I would normally do with CNC, because of this).

The YAMATO's flat middle deck region (with the grating at its center over the boilers) could only be reached from above after passing through two lightly armored decks spaced 8.5' (2.6 m) apart and 8.5' above the main armor deck or from the side through a lightly armored upper hull side 17' (5.2 m) high. The upper two decks and upper side hull were made of single plates or two laminated plates of British-type D-steel, which I give a quality factor of 0.9, as given in the table above. The plates were arranged so that they were thickest at the hull side for the decks and thickest at the top of the upper side hull. This meant that the more steep the angle of fall and, thus, the slower the attacking projectile was going, the thinner the upper hull or deck plating that was hit near the centerline, allowing the plates near the side that would be hit at more shallow angles of fall by more rapidly moving projectiles to be reinforced considerably. Incidentally, this also was the best arrangement for strengthening the ship for bad weather, since heavy waves would bear down mostly near the ship's side. The weather deck had only 0.5" (13 mm) D-steel at the centerline, giving an effective STS thickness of 0.45" (11 mm), but this increased in regular steps to 1.42' (36 mm) at the hull side edge, made up of two laminated plates 0.79" (20mm) over 0.63' (16 mm), giving an effective D-steel thickness of 1.29" (33 mm) and an effective STS thickness of 1.16" (30 mm) at its thickest. The second deck only used single plates and it started out at the centerline at 0.39" (10 mm) - equaling 0.35" (9 mm) of STS - and gradually thickened to 1" (25 mm) - equaling 0.9" (23 mm) STS - for the 25% area directly above the outer sloped portion of the main armor deck. The lower half of the upper side hull between the second and third decks was made of a 0.31" (9 mm) D-steel plate laminated to a 1" D-steel plate, giving an effective D-steel thickness of 1.22" (31 mm) and an effective STS thickness of 1.1" (28 mm). The upper half of the upper side hull between the weather (first) and second decks was made of a 0.71-0.87" (18-22 mm) D-steel plate laminated to a 1" D-steel plate, giving an effective D-steel thickness of 1.56-1.7" (40-43 mm) and an effective STS thickness of 1.4-1.53" (36-39 mm).

This plate arrangement would always set off the 38 cm projectile's base fuze, usually on the first plate hit, but only the outer edge of the weather deck or upper half of the upper side hull would decap the projectile.

The 6"-effective-STS-thickness armored grating seems to be a design flaw in the YAMATO and the only vulnerable spot on the deck amidships. Could a "down the stack" hit from the BISMARCK damage the YAMATO? Let's see!

The lower half of the upper side hull is marginal for setting off the projectile's fuze and it would not decap the projectile but the surrounding 1.97" cylinder would slow down and decap any incoming projectiles which try to get hits on the armored gratings reducing their penetration ability somewhat. Also, the impact would be at most at an angle of fall of 8.9o assuming that the grating was 20' (6.1 m) wide and centered on the ship centerline, giving an obliquity of 81.1o which I consider impenetrable, anyway.

The top half of the upper side hull would absolutely set off the 38 cm projectile's base fuze and decap the projectile and the angle of fall at the grating would be at most 17.8o, which for the German 38 cm gun occurs at a striking velocity of 1624 feet/second (495 m/sec) at 23,000 yards (21,000 m), giving an impact obliquity of 72.2o. The analysis of the SOUTH DAKOTA showed that this was too oblique for penetrating a 6" plate, making the grating invulnerable even if the projectile could reach the 56.7' (17.3 m) slant distance to the near edge of the grating prior to its fuze setting it off. The top half of the upper side hull and the second deck plating together cost the 38 cm projectile about 15 feet/second (3.7 m/sec), which gives a nominal 56.3' (17.2 m) travel for the designed 0.035-second German base fuze delay at 1609 feet/second (490 m/sec). This means that only about half of the striking 38 cm projectiles would even reach the grating after an upper side hit, even if penetration were possible which it isn't.

The German 38 cm projectile hitting the upper side hull could only damage a boiler if it hit the armored grating and exploded before ricocheting off, where the downward blast might rupture an uptake pipe and cause the nearby area to be abandoned due to poison fumes. Pretty small chance!

The path through the weather and second decks to the grating is now the only one left. The angle of fall for the 38 cm gun at 37,580 yards (34,300 m) is 39o with a striking velocity of 1506 feet/second (459 m/sec), which gives a 51o obliquity against the deck armor and a minimum 39o vertical obliquity against the circular 1.97" funnel shield. The slant distance is 27' (8.2 m) from the weather deck to the grating. If the average 30o horizontal obliquity for a vertical cylinder is added in, the average total obliquity far the 1.97" funnel shield at maximum range is 47.7o, which requires a minimum striking velocity of 394 feet/second (120 m/sec) for complete penetration. At this angle of fall we would be going through the weather deck where it is about 0.63" (16 mm) thick - a 0.57" (14 mm) STS equivalent - and where the second deck is only 0.5" (13 mm) thick - a 0.45" (11 mm) STS equivalent. These would not decap or deflect the projectile, but it probably would set off the base fuze. The weather deck requires about 138 feet/second (42 m/sec) to penetrate and the second deck about 108 feet/second (33 m/sec) to penetrate at 51o obliquity. These decks reduce the striking velocity on the 1.97" funnel shield to 1496 feet/second (456 m/sec). The remaining velocity after penetrating the funnel shield is 1443 feet/second (440 m/sec) and the projectile is decapped, though not deflected. Without an AP cap we switch to my U.S. penetration formula and this gives at 51o obliquity a necessary striking velocity to completely penetrate the 6"-effective-STS thickness armored grating of 1447 feet/second (441 m/second), which is essentially right on the money. Therefore, the German 38 cm projectile can destroy a centerline boiler room (one of the 12 in that area!) of the YAMATO (but nothing else) if it hits the armored grating region, which is about 20' wide by 40' long (6.l x l2.2 m) just behind the forward conning tower, at a range over 37,500 yards. (Calling Luke Skywalker!)

And I pointed to the documentary because it was generally interesting, due to having interior shots as well as the precise damage done by all weapons inspected from really close range.
in the end a total of over 2000 (2800 I think?) Shots were fired with, according to Wikipedia ~400 hitting, with a penetration of mere 4 shells at the armor belt.

In other worlds less than 1 percent of all fired shots during that battle actually penetrated her hull.
Up until here its still fine, but the english battleships also fired from afar. Even if you take flat 2000 shells fired in total thats a hit rate of less than 1 % on a ship that could only go in circles.
So unless the Bismarck was still pretty good at escaping those shotsm a lot of the hits that were close enough(Edit: as in impacted close enough) to damage her still didn't manage to do so.

Bismarck's side armour was pretty weak. Her strength stemmed from an internal armour behind the main belt. Factoring in the loss of the AP cap and speed from the belt armour Bismarck's internals were pretty much impenetrable. So yeah, just looking from a single penetration angle the armour looks fantastic.

However, that design also had shortcomings that make it doubtful whether it really provided a benefit. First, the weak side armour meant that the upper hull area (where some critical equipment and cables were stored) could be taken out at far greater ranges than for other battleships. Meaning it's easier to cripple the ship's ability to actually carry out the fight. Second, this design cost considerable weight - weight that could've been spent to beef up the weak deck armour that was quite vulnerable. Third, the belt armour's shallow extension allowed for dangerous penetration below the waterline, as shown during the engagement with Prince of Wales. There are also additional drawbacks, for that I refer back to the link I posted.

The British ships closing the distance therefore just reduced their chances to actually deal mortal damage. All they did was bang their head against a brick wall. Had they maintained a bigger distance they could've dealt significant damage either via the deck, or through underwater hits.

German Ships probably had stern instabilities, which is why they got refits in that regard after Prinz Eugen was damaged.

Do you have a source for that? I suspect you may confuse that for the problems with the stem the Germans had. Due to the rough Atlantic the German ships (especially the Gneisenaus) tended to take on much water which caused floodings in some areas and damage to the equipment. So they refitted practically all capital ships with a so-called "Atlantic bow". Bismarck already had that when she went out to sea.

Precision aside, that still doesn't warrant 'no chance' the first thing being that both ships had recon planes, so its not like they wouldn't have known the other one was there.
And that is a reason a pointed to Cameron's documentation - Bismarcks planes were unable to launch.

A couple of recon planes make little difference. First of all, they can cover only a small part of the area. Then, launching them is a very delicate affair that quite often didn't go as planned. Last but not least, spotting by recon plane proved to be prone to human mistakes. Like mistaking ships, reporting the wrong position etc. Radar is far more accurate in this regard.

[AC-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

The British ships closing the distance therefore just reduced their chances to actually deal mortal damage. All they did was bang their head against a brick wall. Had they maintained a bigger distance they could've dealt significant damage either via the deck, or through underwater hits.

My point is that there must have been more than just 4 underwater hits from long range in the first place with 2800 shells fired.
Less than 1 % actually hitting sounds unlikely considering how her course was pretty much predictable.

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

Do you have a source for that? I suspect you may confuse that for the problems with the stem the Germans had. Due to the rough Atlantic the German ships (especially the Gneisenaus) tended to take on much water which caused floodings in some areas and damage to the equipment. So they refitted practically all capital ships with a so-called "Atlantic bow". Bismarck already had that when she went out to sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In 1942 Prinz Eugen was also torpedoed in the stern, which subsequently collapsed. This prompted a strengthening of the stern structures on all German capital ships.

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

A couple of recon planes make little difference. First of all, they can cover only a small part of the area. Then, launching them is a very delicate affair that quite often didn't go as planned. Last but not least, spotting by recon plane proved to be prone to human mistakes. Like mistaking ships, reporting the wrong position etc. Radar is far more accurate in this regard.

Oh I hope so, otherwise Radars would be useless anyway.

Human mistake is a good catchphrase here as it played a vital role in the Bismarcks sinking. (twice)
First Lütjens decision to not open fire or even shoot back., second his decision to make the maneuver that took out her rudder.

[Ithekro]

As far as I can tell there is no practical way for Bismarck to hit Yamato at 40 kilometers. Unless Yamato is sitting stationary at Truk with the spotting plane.

The only way I can think of these two Axis battleships to engage in a fight where they can be able to hurt each other is a fight at night. Night battles are generally done at close range compared to a daylight battle, which would be rare in the Pacific due to the strength of air power in that area.

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by AC-Phoenix

My point is that there must have been more than just 4 underwater hits from long range in the first place with 2800 shells fired.
Less than 1 % actually hitting sounds unlikely considering how her course was pretty much predictable.

The British were too close for underwater hits to happen. Most of the shelling happened from a distance of well below 10 km. The flat trajectory of the shells would've led them to ricochet off the surface of the water and fly into the upper hull or superstructure.

And you have to clarify the number of shells. The number 2800 (of which about 300-400 actually hit) doesn't tell that much. More relevant are how many were fired from which guns? KGV fired 660 5.25" shells and Rodney 716 6" ones. Those can be taken completely out of the equation since they are only capable of damaging the unprotected upperworks. Likewise the 781 8" shells from Dorsetshire and Norfolk can be taken out of the equation. They concentrated on the superstructure of Bismarck. So actually relevant for the hull are only the 339 14" ones from KGV and the 380 16" ones from Rodney.

Additionally the British somewhat hindered their own efforts by bombarding both sides of the ship. So the floodings that occured offset each other. Note the difference to the American approch against Yamato where they only targeted the port side to force her to capsize.

In 1942 Prinz Eugen was also torpedoed in the stern, which subsequently collapsed. This prompted a strengthening of the stern structures on all German capital ships.

Ah yes, this. But again one has to be careful here. The stern structure problems on the German ships were a result of the welding technique used to attach the stern to the hull. So it's a structural problem. It is debatable how much a strengthening would've actually helped.

First Lütjens decision to not open fire or even shoot back., second his decision to make the maneuver that took out her rudder.

I don't know what you are blaming him for the rudder. This was a combination of inadequate protection of the rudder area and design choices.

[AC-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

The British were too close for underwater hits to happen. Most of the shelling happened from a distance of well below 10 km. The flat trajectory of the shells would've led them to ricochet off the surface of the water and fly into the upper hull or superstructure.

The entire thing didn't happen within minutes, they started shooting at her pretty soon. Even if they were that close, its still an aweful hit rate.

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

And you have to clarify the number of shells. The number 2800 (of which about 300-400 actually hit) doesn't tell that much. More relevant are how many were fired from which guns? KGV fired 660 5.25" shells and Rodney 716 6" ones. Those can be taken completely out of the equation since they are only capable of damaging the unprotected upperworks. Likewise the 781 8" shells from Dorsetshire and Norfolk can be taken out of the equation. They concentrated on the superstructure of Bismarck. So actually relevant for the hull are only the 339 14" ones from KGV and the 380 16" ones from Rodney.

The 2800 were all shells together.

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

Additionally the British somewhat hindered their own efforts by bombarding both sides of the ship. So the floodings that occured offset each other. Note the difference to the American approch against Yamato where they only targeted the port side to force her to capsize.

Well to be fair to them Churchill even told them that he doesn't care how he just wants it done.

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

Ah yes, this. But again one has to be careful here. The stern structure problems on the German ships were a result of the welding technique used to attach the stern to the hull. So it's a structural problem. It is debatable how much a strengthening would've actually helped.

Well the Prinz Eugen survived long enough to Capzize after operation crossroads, so the problem was probably solved well enough.

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

I don't know what you are blaming him for the rudder. This was a combination of inadequate protection of the rudder area and design choices.

The exact instance was when the Topeedo hit her stern, ultimately causing the rudder to shake hands with the propellar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2av7lz2lkQk
35:00 onwards to about 36:20

Ignore the title, btw it made me smirk a bit too


A bit questionable how accurate it is due to coming from Survivor reports. If I remember it right from Cameron's dive the rudder actually got cought in the propeller - is what it looked like that is.

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by AC-Phoenix

The entire thing didn't happen within minutes, they started shooting at her pretty soon. Even if they were that close, its still an aweful hit rate.

Rodney and KGV opened fire from about 23km at 0847. The course of the British ships and Bismarck was more or less directly towards each other. Meaning when firing commenced it was anything but a favourable shelling position (with the underwater part practically unable to get hit). By the time the British could use the broadsides at aorund 0910 they were already below 10km in distance, which was too close for having the right angle to penetrate the underwater part of Bismarck.

The 2800 were all shells together.

And as I said, this number is irrelevant when looking at potential damage to the side armour, above and below the water. The only number that count are the 339 14" shells from KGV and 380 16" from Rodney, since only they could effectively penetrate the side armour. And then you still have to factor in that for some time the British were aiming at the superstructure to take out Bismarck's ability to carry out the fight.

Well the Prinz Eugen survived long enough to Capzize after operation crossroads, so the problem was probably solved well enough.

This has nothing to do with the stern problems. I don't know what makes you think that light damage from a nuclear blast is proof that structural failings of the stern had been solved. For that you would need an actual hit by a shell or by a torpedo against the stern that strains the structural integrity of that specific part.

The exact instance was when the Topeedo hit her stern, ultimately causing the rudder to shake hands with the propellar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2av7lz2lkQk
35:00 onwards to about 36:20

Which isn't really a fault of either Lütjens or Lindemann. Zig-zagging is standard procedure during a torpedo attack. Just happened to be unlucky in this specific instance, which was made worse by the construction decisions when building the ship.

[Ithekro]

The wreckage of Battleship Musashi has reportedly been found at the bottom of the Sibuyan Sea. (she seems upright and relatively intact so far)

https://twitter.com/PaulGAllen/statu...31062522982400


She sank there over 70 years ago.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The wreckage of Battleship Musashi has reportedly been found at the bottom of the Sibuyan Sea. (she seems upright and relatively intact so far)

https://twitter.com/PaulGAllen/statu...31062522982400


She sank there over 70 years ago.

Uchuu Senkan Musashi can be done????

[Qikz]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The wreckage of Battleship Musashi has reportedly been found at the bottom of the Sibuyan Sea. (she seems upright and relatively intact so far)

https://twitter.com/PaulGAllen/statu...31062522982400


She sank there over 70 years ago.

Oh man that's both amazing and horrible. So many men died when that boat sank

[JokerD]

Originally Posted by Qikz

Oh man that's both amazing and horrible. So many men died when that boat sank

Wiki says 1,376 of her 2,399-man crew were rescued so 1023 died. Also need to add about 100+ people from the Maya which was on the Musashi after it sank as well.

Originally Posted by Sheba

Uchuu Senkan Musashi can be done????

Well better than the Yamato anyway, which is lying in 2 pieces on the sea floor...