Prinz Eugen (was Re: WWII Question)
Peter H. Granzeau
On 7 Jun 1997 00:42:33 GMT, zek...@aol.com (Zek0221) wrote:
>According to Mr. Mackay, Prinz Eugen "was serving as mothership to the
>German Far East U-boat squadron etc etc....taken over by the 5th Raider
>Battalion...exec ordered the seacocks opened and she settled on an even
>keel."
>
>Prinz Eugen was no such thing, and no such event occurred in her career.
>
>I don't know where the "Far East U-boat Squadron" story came from, but it
>sounds a lot like a novel I read while I was stationed in Iceland back in
>the 1970's.
> Jim Anderson
> LT USN
>"the ancient mustang"
Apparently, the one thing missing from the modern Navy is a sense of
the ridiculous.
Michel Eyckmans (MCE)
All this talk about Prinz Eugen brings me to a rather hypothetical
question that has been wandering around in my head for a while now:
Suppose Bismarck and Prinz Eugen would still have been together
at the moment of Bismarck's fatal rudder damage. Could Prinz Eugen
have "towed" her to (relative) safety?
I would assume that having the required horsepower around wouldn't
have been the problem, since Bismarck's power plant was still in
working condition. But what about the weather, the top speed they
would have been able to make, etc. etc.
MCE
--
==========================================================================
M. Eyckmans (MCE) Code of the Geeks v3.1 m...@tornado.be
GCS d+ s++:-- a31 C+++$ UHLUASO+++$ P+ L+++ E--- W++ N+++ !o K w--- !O M--
V-- PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP- t--- !5 !X R-- tv- b+ DI++ D-- G++ e+++ h+(*) !r y?
==========================================================================
TMO/TX
Michel Eyckmans (MCE) wrote:
>
> Suppose Bismarck and Prinz Eugen would still have been together
> at the moment of Bismarck's fatal rudder damage. Could Prinz Eugen
> have "towed" her to (relative) safety?
>
> I would assume that having the required horsepower around wouldn't
> have been the problem, since Bismarck's power plant was still in
> working condition. But what about the weather, the top speed they
> would have been able to make, etc. etc.
>
"Towing" a vessel under power with way on, especially one the rudder(s)
of which were inoperative and jammed at a fixed angle would be an
awesome challenge of seamanship and ship handling.
Rigging a tow cable is an immense feat, even with the large crews of
naval vessels, but from the fantail of a cruiser to a BB of 3 times
displacment with seas making up seas is a daunting task.
The major problem becomes the larger more powerful Bismarck which would
in essence "drag' the Eugen by the cable, sheering off to port or
starboard and pulling the Eugen's stern around.
Best possible scenario, five knots or so on a snakey, sinuous course and
not very effective.
Likely scenario, "no bueno por chit!".
--
Kestrel Syndicate - Oliver Associates - Southwest Regional Council
"Quid consilium cepit..."
peter...@stmarys.ca
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 00:39:30 -0700, TMO/TX <swr...@iamerica.net>
wrote:
>Michel Eyckmans (MCE) wrote:
>>
>
>> Suppose Bismarck and Prinz Eugen would still have been together
>> at the moment of Bismarck's fatal rudder damage. Could Prinz Eugen
>> have "towed" her to (relative) safety?
>>
>> I would assume that having the required horsepower around wouldn't
>> have been the problem, since Bismarck's power plant was still in
>> working condition. But what about the weather, the top speed they
>> would have been able to make, etc. etc.
>
Could the Prinz Eugen potentially have blown the stuck rudders off of
the Bismarck and been able to tow it at lets say 8-10 knots?
If not, the Prinz Eugen could have at least off loaded a portion of
the Bismarck's crew. (Admiral Raider (sp?))
M J BAILEY
Probably but if Prinz Eugan would have hung around or had attempted to take Bismark under tow, how long would she have lasted against the combined British Fleet ?? She would have probably joined the Bismark on the bottom !!!
Even the older ships of the pursuing forces could make 20 knots minimum so a tow would have been virtual suicide.
kif
peter...@stmarys.ca wrote:
: On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 00:39:30 -0700, TMO/TX <swr...@iamerica.net>
: wrote:
: >Michel Eyckmans (MCE) wrote:
: >>
: >
: >> Suppose Bismarck and Prinz Eugen would still have been together
: >> at the moment of Bismarck's fatal rudder damage. Could Prinz Eugen
: >> have "towed" her to (relative) safety?
: Could the Prinz Eugen potentially have blown the stuck rudders off of
: the Bismarck and been able to tow it at lets say 8-10 knots?
Please forgive my uneducated hypothesis, but IIRC the Bismarck was
just outside the range of the Luftwaffe (Brest). Would the German High
Command sacrifice a number of planes (I take it that 'range' allows for
safe return in terms of fuel) in order to attempt to save the Bismarck?
Prinz Eugen could act as an observant who would transmit the position of
enemy ships to the planes. U-Prien was also shadowing the British fleet -
they simply didn't have any torpedoes left to have a go, but they could
also act as an informant (although this would mean breaking vital radio
silence).
My theory relies heavily on perfect coordination of the German forces
and rapid decisions of the German HQ in an all-or-nothing scenario
against the odds. I am completely unaware of the types of planes
stationed in Brest or their weapon availability (torpedoes?) But a
critical hit on the British would slow down their advance, allowing
Bismarck to retreat to safe waters unharmed.
-stavros
compsci ug
--
- K I F -
finger sfot...@dcsun1.comp.brad.ac.uk for WWW info and PGP key
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
God is real, unless declared as an integer
jlos...@comp.uark.edu
In article <5njnek$3...@gcsin3.geccs.gecm.com> MIKE....@GECM.COM (M J
> In article <339d9650...@news.stmarys.ca>, peter...@stmarys.ca
(peter...@stmarys.ca) writes:
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Michel Eyckmans (MCE) wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > >> Suppose Bismarck and Prinz Eugen would still have been together
> > >> at the moment of Bismarck's fatal rudder damage. Could Prinz Eugen
> > >> have "towed" her to (relative) safety?
> > >>
> > >> have been the problem, since Bismarck's power plant was still in
> > >> working condition. But what about the weather, the top speed they
> > >> would have been able to make, etc. etc.
> > >
> >
> > the Bismarck and been able to tow it at lets say 8-10 knots?
> >
> > the Bismarck's crew. (Admiral Raider (sp?))
>
> Probably but if Prinz Eugan would have hung around or had attempted to
take Bismark under tow, how long would she have lasted against the
combined British Fleet ?? She would have probably joined the Bismark on
the bottom !!!
Not really, the primary problem the Bismark what a jammed rudder. This
ment that with the winds what they were the Bismark was stuck heading
north. Had the sea conditions been different she may have headed south or
some other direction. With a tow it could have probably made it to cover.
The KGV was nearrly out of fuel. (_Pursute_, Kennedy) Rodney was only able
to make about 21 or 22 knots. The only other major British unit is the
area was Repulse, with force H. She was much closer but even when Rodney
and KGV attacked Repulse stayed clear. I have always been told that this
was because the British thought that the same fate the befel Hood would
repeat itself. The cruisers most certianlly could have caught her, except
Norfolk which was also low on fuel. Until the hit from the Ark Royal's
string bags it was believed that Bismarck was going to make it to aircover
before the Brits could catch her.
>
> Even the older ships of the pursuing forces could make 20 knots minimum
so a tow would have been virtual suicide.
The variables here are: what speed could a towed Bismarck make? Would it
be fast enough for the ships to get under Luaffwaffe protection before
dawn? If the Brits realized this would they renew the air attack (in the
dark)? Would they risk Repulse and Sheffield in a toe to toe with a
crippled Bismarck and her escort (Prinz Eugen)? Would land based air be
employed by the Brits as the ship got closer to France. The gamming
potiential is incredable.
Jon
David G. Bell
In article <5njq7q$1...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>
sfot...@comp.brad.ac.uk "kif" writes:
> peter...@stmarys.ca wrote:
> : On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 00:39:30 -0700, TMO/TX <swr...@iamerica.net>
> : wrote:
>
> : >Michel Eyckmans (MCE) wrote:
> : >>
> : >
> : >> Suppose Bismarck and Prinz Eugen would still have been together
> : >> at the moment of Bismarck's fatal rudder damage. Could Prinz Eugen
> : >> have "towed" her to (relative) safety?
>
> : Could the Prinz Eugen potentially have blown the stuck rudders off of
> : the Bismarck and been able to tow it at lets say 8-10 knots?
>
>
> Please forgive my uneducated hypothesis, but IIRC the Bismarck was
> just outside the range of the Luftwaffe (Brest). Would the German High
> Command sacrifice a number of planes (I take it that 'range' allows for
> safe return in terms of fuel) in order to attempt to save the Bismarck?
> Prinz Eugen could act as an observant who would transmit the position of
> enemy ships to the planes. U-Prien was also shadowing the British fleet -
> they simply didn't have any torpedoes left to have a go, but they could
> also act as an informant (although this would mean breaking vital radio
> silence).
>
> My theory relies heavily on perfect coordination of the German forces
> and rapid decisions of the German HQ in an all-or-nothing scenario
> against the odds. I am completely unaware of the types of planes
> stationed in Brest or their weapon availability (torpedoes?) But a
> critical hit on the British would slow down their advance, allowing
> Bismarck to retreat to safe waters unharmed.
The damage which was forcing the return to Brest had no seriously
affected the Bismarck's steering (if at all). The Prinz Eugen was
detached to operate independently.
The torpedo attack which did jam the rudders came later, towards dusk on
the 26th May.
Captain Lindemann did consider blowing the rudders off, but in the heavy
seas it was impossible to put a diver over the side, and there was
severe surging in the flooded rudder machinery compartment.
_Very_ roughly, the Bismarck was sunk about as far from Brest as is
Douro in Portugal. Looking at maps, it looks just that bit too far for
bomber operations by the Luftwaffe. They would have been flying out,
loaded, with the wind against them, which ouldn't help.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Jay Martino
m...@tornado.be (Michel Eyckmans (MCE)) wrote:
>Suppose Bismarck and Prinz Eugen would still have been together
>at the moment of Bismarck's fatal rudder damage. Could Prinz Eugen
>have "towed" her to (relative) safety?
>
>I would assume that having the required horsepower around wouldn't
>have been the problem, since Bismarck's power plant was still in
>working condition. But what about the weather, the top speed they
>would have been able to make, etc. etc.
The rudder would still have been a problem. Bismarck would still have
been unable to hold a straight course.
Jay
"Life. Hate it or loath it, you can't ignore it".
Remove the * from the "reply to:' field when replying
by e-mail.
Peter Skelton
db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>In article <5njq7q$1...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>
> sfot...@comp.brad.ac.uk "kif" writes:
<long snip>
>Captain Lindemann did consider blowing the rudders off, but in the heavy
>seas it was impossible to put a diver over the side, and there was
>severe surging in the flooded rudder machinery compartment.
>_Very_ roughly, the Bismarck was sunk about as far from Brest as is
>Douro in Portugal. Looking at maps, it looks just that bit too far for
>bomber operations by the Luftwaffe. They would have been flying out,
>loaded, with the wind against them, which ouldn't help.
Victorious was still around. Two big ships towing at ten knots would make a
really good target. The action was in May at around 47(?) north, so there
would be lots of daylight.
(The British had at least two cruisers and a battlecruiser near enough to
interfere during the night, if it had been necessary.)
Just passing the tow and keeping it from breaking under the weather
conditions (without opposition) would have been difficult enough.
--
Peter Skelton
Skelton & Associates
613/634-0230
p...@adan.kingston.net
jlos...@comp.uark.edu
In article <339e906a...@gollum.kingston.net> p...@adan.kingston.net
> db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>
> >In article <5njq7q$1...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>
> > sfot...@comp.brad.ac.uk "kif" writes:
> Victorious was still around. Two big ships towing at ten knots would
make a
> really good target. The action was in May at around 47(?) north, so
there
> would be lots of daylight.
Well there would have been several hours (10 or so ) of dark before a
third attack from Ark Royal (not Victorious) could have been launched,
this is 100nm at ten knots, does this put Bismarck under cover of planes
from France?
>
> (The British had at least two cruisers and a battlecruiser near enough
to
> interfere during the night, if it had been necessary.)
And the destroyers, the Sheffield was shadowing the Bismark and would
probably be able to continue shadowing. However if Eugen was there she
might take it on herself to do something about Sheffield before passing
the tow.
The British actions next would be the real question. If the
destroyers were in range. (I assume they were since they shadowed Bismark
throught the night. Then my guess is that with a 10 knot or so target the
destroyers would brave an attempt at launching againts the pair. Greman
standaing orders being what they are I would expect that the Eugen would
have been sent home, perhaps after off loading the Admiral's staff, and
the war journal. I think Lutans (sp?) would have stayed.
>
> Just passing the tow and keeping it from breaking under the weather
> conditions (without opposition) would have been difficult enough.
>
Yes.
>
> --
> Peter Skelton
> Skelton & Associates
> 613/634-0230
> p...@adan.kingston.net
Jon
gilb...@ix.netcom.com
> Various folks wrote:
>
> >_Very_ roughly, the Bismarck was sunk about as far from Brest as is
> >Douro in Portugal. Looking at maps, it looks just that bit too far for
> >bomber operations by the Luftwaffe. They would have been flying out,
> >loaded, with the wind against them, which ouldn't help.
>
> really good target. The action was in May at around 47(?) north, so there
> would be lots of daylight.
>
range of the Brest based Luftwaffe. The German interservice cooperation
between Navy and Air force was really bad. At extreme range, I don't
think the Royal Navy would be greatly bothered by the few German planes
that might have shown up. The Germans could bomb single merchantmen
with some success, but warships are another story. Even during the
Crete evacuation, the Royal Navy ships that sank usually ONLY sank when
they ran out of AA ammo. Only then could the Germans really drive home
their attacks. It would not be likely that the few planes flying from
Brest would have enough loiter time to deplete the British AA ammo.
At this stage of the war, did the Germans have any heavy anti-shipping
capability? Did they have anything more dangerous then Ju-88A's at long
range? When did they develop the bomb used to sink Roma?
Also, what kind of fighter support could the British carriers provide?
Was it junky biplane stuff, or was it Hurricanes or Spitfires?
John Gilbert
jlos...@comp.uark.edu
In article <339dadd...@news.igs.net> mjmartino@igs*.net (Jay Martino)
writes:
Yes, but being draged this would not be as much of a problem as sailing
with a jammed rudder alone. The line of force is in the direction you are
being pulled, the rudder an only apply a torque, no external force. The
ship would turn until the torque from the rudder was compensated for by
the angle of the two and a balance was reached. I don't know what the
best speed would have been but you would be able to move, in the correct
direction.
I would hope the Bismarcks own engins could help as well.
Jon
David G. Bell
> In article <339e906a...@gollum.kingston.net> p...@adan.kingston.net
> (Peter Skelton) writes:
> > db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
> >
> > >In article <5njq7q$1...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>
> > > sfot...@comp.brad.ac.uk "kif" writes:
> > <snip>
>
> > Victorious was still around. Two big ships towing at ten knots would
> make a
> > really good target. The action was in May at around 47(?) north, so
> there
> > would be lots of daylight.
>
> Well there would have been several hours (10 or so ) of dark before a
> third attack from Ark Royal (not Victorious) could have been launched,
> this is 100nm at ten knots, does this put Bismarck under cover of planes
> from France?
Vian was making torpedo attacks with his destroyer flotilla that night.
Even if Prinz Eugen had been there, Bismarck was likely finished.
Peter Skelton
jlos...@comp.uark.edu wrote:
>In article <339e906a...@gollum.kingston.net> p...@adan.kingston.net
>(Peter Skelton) writes:
>> db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>>
>> >In article <5njq7q$1...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>
>> > sfot...@comp.brad.ac.uk "kif" writes:
>> <snip>
>
>> Victorious was still around. Two big ships towing at ten knots would
>make a
>> really good target. The action was in May at around 47(?) north, so
>there
>> would be lots of daylight.
>Well there would have been several hours (10 or so ) of dark before a
>third attack from Ark Royal (not Victorious) could have been launched,
>this is 100nm at ten knots, does this put Bismarck under cover of planes
>from France?
Actually a little under four. Bismark watched teh destroyers optically all
night with 20(?) times optical gathering. Ordinary night glasses are around
eight, IIRC. (The whole dark business might be a red herring - Taranto was
done after dark, the Swordfish had radar and flares, the destroyers were in
touch and could fire starshells, the RN was accustomed to night carrier
operations - I think I made a mistake.)
>> (The British had at least two cruisers and a battlecruiser near enough
>to
>> interfere during the night, if it had been necessary.)
>And the destroyers, the Sheffield was shadowing the Bismark and would
>probably be able to continue shadowing. However if Eugen was there she
>might take it on herself to do something about Sheffield before passing
>the tow.
Eugen was not going to have time to sink Sheffield and the destroyers,
fight off an air attack, pass the tow and tow Bizmark anywhere. What does
PE do if the battle-cruiser comes over? Renown was the RN's A team (with
Nelson, Rodney and Warspite) at that time of the war. She fought
Scharnhorst and Guiseneau together chasing them off during the Norweigan
campaign.
> The British actions next would be the real question. If the
>destroyers were in range. (I assume they were since they shadowed Bismark
>throught the night.
They were.
Then my guess is that with a 10 knot or so target the
>destroyers would brave an attempt at launching againts the pair. Greman
>standaing orders being what they are I would expect that the Eugen would
>have been sent home, perhaps after off loading the Admiral's staff, and
>the war journal. I think Lutans (sp?) would have stayed.
<snip>
That is risking a lot for not much gain.
A R BREEN
In article <339F68...@ix.netcom.com>, <gilb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Also, what kind of fighter support could the British carriers provide?
>Was it junky biplane stuff, or was it Hurricanes or Spitfires?
The FAA had no biplane fighters embarked aboard the big carriers by 1941. At
a guess the fighters would have been Fulmars, maybe Skuas (which had a
fairly good record against the Ju88 in Norway), possibly early Marlets
(Wildcats), maybe some Sea Hurricanes. Depended on the ship. More than
enough to break up any extreme-range strike.
| Andy Breen | Adran Ffiseg/Physics Department, UW/PC Aberystwyth |
| a...@aber.ac.uk | http://www.aber.ac.uk/~azb Tel: (44) 01970 621907 |
"Every section of the New Quay community was tied up in the sea"
(_The Maritime heritage of Dyfed_, Nat. museum of Wales)
David G. Bell
> > Various folks wrote:
> >
> > >_Very_ roughly, the Bismarck was sunk about as far from Brest as is
> > >Douro in Portugal. Looking at maps, it looks just that bit too far for
> > >bomber operations by the Luftwaffe. They would have been flying out,
> > >loaded, with the wind against them, which ouldn't help.
> >
> > Victorious was still around. Two big ships towing at ten knots would make a
> > really good target. The action was in May at around 47(?) north, so there
> > would be lots of daylight.
> >
> IMHO too much is made of the advantages of getting the Bismarck within
> range of the Brest based Luftwaffe. The German interservice cooperation
> between Navy and Air force was really bad. At extreme range, I don't
> think the Royal Navy would be greatly bothered by the few German planes
> that might have shown up. The Germans could bomb single merchantmen
> with some success, but warships are another story. Even during the
> Crete evacuation, the Royal Navy ships that sank usually ONLY sank when
> they ran out of AA ammo. Only then could the Germans really drive home
> their attacks. It would not be likely that the few planes flying from
> Brest would have enough loiter time to deplete the British AA ammo.
>
> At this stage of the war, did the Germans have any heavy anti-shipping
> capability? Did they have anything more dangerous then Ju-88A's at long
> range? When did they develop the bomb used to sink Roma?
>
> Also, what kind of fighter support could the British carriers provide?
> Was it junky biplane stuff, or was it Hurricanes or Spitfires?
Neither, the Victorious carried Fulmar fighters, and only had three left
after trying to use the to shadow the Bismarck at night. I don't know
what Ark Royal carried.
Not all that great a fighter, but apparently an adequate bomber
interceptor.
Michel Eyckmans (MCE)
|> Yes, but being draged this would not be as much of a problem as sailing
|> with a jammed rudder alone. The line of force is in the direction you are
|> being pulled, the rudder an only apply a torque, no external force. The
|> ship would turn until the torque from the rudder was compensated for by
|> the angle of the two and a balance was reached.
...
|> I would hope the Bismarcks own engins could help as well.
That was indeed my original reasoning. But only in the sense that I was
counting on them to reduce the amount of pulling PE would have to do,
not in the sense of actually helping to steer very much. IIRC Bismarck
was known since her sea trials to be very hard to steer using the
engines only.
The things that I was/am not sure about is the influence of the
not-so-nice weather on such an operation, the top speed possible etc.
I guess things would also depend on the exact position of the rudders.
And obviously also the positions/condition (esp. regarding fuel) of
the various RN units relative to both play a major role.
A R BREEN
In article <339D04...@iamerica.net>, TMO/TX <swr...@iamerica.net> wrote:
>Michel Eyckmans (MCE) wrote:
>Best possible scenario, five knots or so on a snakey, sinuous course and
>not very effective.
>
>Likely scenario, "no bueno por chit!".
>--
Worst scenario: Prinz Eugen gets a cable around a screw (or a rudder!)
and then they see the control tower of _Rodney_ on the horizon....
You _might_ save a battlewagon.
OTOH there's a very good chance of losing a big cruiser too.
Nasty choice....
| Andy Breen | Adran Ffiseg/Physics Department, UW/PC Aberystwyth |
| a...@aber.ac.uk | http://www.aber.ac.uk/~azb Tel: (44) 01970 621907 |
Life is short: eat pudding first (Peter Grey-Hughes)
TMO/TX
jlos...@comp.uark.edu wrote:
>
> In article <339dadd...@news.igs.net> mjmartino@igs*.net (Jay Martino)
> writes:
> > m...@tornado.be (Michel Eyckmans (MCE)) wrote:
> >
> > >Suppose Bismarck and Prinz Eugen would still have been together
> > >at the moment of Bismarck's fatal rudder damage. Could Prinz Eugen
> > >have "towed" her to (relative) safety?
> > >
> > >I would assume that having the required horsepower around wouldn't
> > >have been the problem, since Bismarck's power plant was still in
> > >working condition. But what about the weather, the top speed they
> > >would have been able to make, etc. etc.
> >
> > The rudder would still have been a problem. Bismarck would still have
> > been unable to hold a straight course.
> >
> >
> > Jay
> >
> > "Life. Hate it or loath it, you can't ignore it".
> > Remove the * from the "reply to:' field when replying
> > by e-mail.
>
> with a jammed rudder alone. The line of force is in the direction you are
> being pulled, the rudder an only apply a torque, no external force. The
> ship would turn until the torque from the rudder was compensated for by
> best speed would have been but you would be able to move, in the correct
> direction.
>
While Prinz Eugen was certainly capable of towing Bismarck, rigging a
tow in the existing sea states with a crew so relatively
untrained/inexperienced as Bismarck's seems a long shot to any bettor
(or anyone who has ever participated in the old naval exercise: "Now rig
for towing", practiced by ATFs and such, but rarely by combatants - even
at Gitmo).
Having rigged the tow, another grotesque problem emerges....
PE can tow, first in a great arc to pull Bismarck's head around to an
easterly heading, then toward France, working up to 8-10kts over time,
while the cable plays havoc with her fantail, ripping out assorted deck
fittings, etc (and doing even greater potential damage) to a ship not
designed for towing. The chafing gear for hauling about ponderous BBs
is not stowed abaft most ship's spud lockers, and in all honesty the
only suitable anchoring point may have been to construct some sort of
bridle around the after barbette.
Then comes the monster, Bismarck's own engines, which acting against the
jammed rudder, would have made towing enormously more difficult if not
impossible. To envision their use is to comprehend that Bismarck would
be constantly pulling PE's stern around toward the North, the two ships'
propulsion systems working against each other, exerting almost
perpendicular forces without the nice result of steering a course midway
between (because of the flexible towing cable and Bismarck's greater
power/disp.).
Bismarck's engines not only wouldn't help; they would put the ships in a
world of hurt.
Having only been involved in modest tows in inland waters, I can only
speak from theoretical "book learning" and having been a qualified OOD
on a large combatant (45K+/- t. disp., 889', 4 screws but only one
rudder). Even without a jammed rudder, low speed handling was a bitch,
and in a 3 year tour, I never remember rigging for towing/being towed.
I seriously doubt that Bismarck's inexperienced crew had ever done so
(except in harbor) or could have done so under the circumstances.
Along comes another problem....
Both ships must stop to rig a tow. Several hours DIW would have made
British sightings/closing likely and the future of towing even more
pessimistic.
"Now Third Division lay aft. Stand by to rig and pass a tow. All
divisions lay below to pass mattresses and fart sacks aft."
Ian/Michelle Busch
On 12 Jun 1997 17:18:22 +0100, a...@aber.ac.uk (A R BREEN) wrote:
>In article <339F68...@ix.netcom.com>, <gilb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>Also, what kind of fighter support could the British carriers provide?
>>Was it junky biplane stuff, or was it Hurricanes or Spitfires?
>
>The FAA had no biplane fighters embarked aboard the big carriers by 1941. At
>a guess the fighters would have been Fulmars, maybe Skuas (which had a
>fairly good record against the Ju88 in Norway), possibly early Marlets
>(Wildcats), maybe some Sea Hurricanes. Depended on the ship. More than
>enough to break up any extreme-range strike.
>
When Ark Royal was sunk (not long after), her fighter complement was
Fulmars. Being that a Martlet or Sea Hurricane would be (I have to
believe) considered an upgrade to a Fulmar, I would guess that Ark had
Fulmars aboard during Bismark. I also can't imagine Sea Gladiators or
even Skuas on board the Ark if Fulmars are available at that point
(Ark being deployed in the Med most of the time). Also, for what its
worth, I didn't think the FAA had started receiving Martlets yet at
this point in the war (or at least not many) -- how about Brewster
Buffalos?
P.S. I remember reading something somewhere about aircraft from the
Ark fighting off German attacks (not severe) at the time Bismark went
down.
Ian/Michelle Busch
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:21:16 -0700, gilb...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>IMHO too much is made of the advantages of getting the Bismarck within
>range of the Brest based Luftwaffe. The German interservice cooperation
>between Navy and Air force was really bad. At extreme range, I don't
>think the Royal Navy would be greatly bothered by the few German planes
>that might have shown up. The Germans could bomb single merchantmen
>with some success, but warships are another story. Even during the
>Crete evacuation, the Royal Navy ships that sank usually ONLY sank when
>they ran out of AA ammo. Only then could the Germans really drive home
>their attacks. It would not be likely that the few planes flying from
>Brest would have enough loiter time to deplete the British AA ammo.
I suspect that the Luffwaffe would not have actually been able to do a
whole lot provided the RN stayed at extreme range. However, from what
little I can read into what I've read, I think that perhaps Tovey, and
certainly the 1st SL were of the opinion that entering even a foot
into German airspace was suicide. I think that fear (rather than the
much less difficult reality) would have kept the RN ships at bay.
One critical consideration though, had to have been fuel. Both Rodney
and KGV (as I understand) were running on fumes at the time, with
barely enuf to get back to Portsmouth (unrep within spitting distance
of France being a less than keen idea). If the Germans mounted an air
attack of any substance, I'm sure that the commanders on scene would
have maneuvered like stuck pigs to get out of the way of the attacking
planes -- that burns gobs of fuel. Tovey was probably keen enuf to
realize this and figured that there was significant chance a single
stinking Ju88 could put a capital ship out of gas on the way home in
sub infested waters.
>
>At this stage of the war, did the Germans have any heavy anti-shipping
>capability? Did they have anything more dangerous then Ju-88A's at long
>range? When did they develop the bomb used to sink Roma?
I believe that Glider Bombs did not start appearing in plenty until
late 42 or early 43.
Ian/Michelle Busch
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:21:16 -0700, gilb...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>The German interservice cooperation
>between Navy and Air force was really bad.
True, but with German sentiment as it was (rooting for Bismark), I
tend to think a Panzer Division would have set sail if they thought
they could help out.
Ian/Michelle Busch
(U-503? 113?) to be towed by Bismark, rather than the otherway around
-- effectively acting as a sea anchor to offset the results of the
rudders. Certainly, PE would have been much better in this role
(hugely more HP and better handling in a seaway). I would tend to
think that this, if (a) you could really rig the tow, and (b) the
whole contraption worked as planned, then you could get Bismark under
Luffwaffe aircover within a few (5-10) hours -- 3 knots would likely
be enuf.
If KGV & Rodney RTB'd for fuel (and air risk), and Vian RTB'd (no more
torpedoes), then we're left with Dorsetshire, Norfolk (or Suffolk, I
can't remember), and Force H. I'd find it tough to believe that
Renown would leave the Ark's side for AA reasons, and if she did, then
Sheffield would go back to cover. So we're left with Bismark and PE
maneuvering quite poorly and with tired crews vs. either 3 x cruisers
or 2 x cruisers + Renown. Tough odds. I don't think I'd bet one way
over another. Certainly, it would take all kinds of luck for the
CA/CLs to send Bismark to the bottom -- Renown could do it, if she
hadn't expended all her 15" just pummelling Bismark to the point where
she could close the range to penetrate (KGV+Rodney had 3x the mag
capacity of Renown).
P.S. Also Renown had lotsa more deck armor than Hood -- I wouldn't
fear a repeat of the Denmark Straits.
P.P.S. Since Rodney claimed that torp hit at fairly long range, were
the seas really that bad by morning?
scha...@notis.nospam*.com
In Article Re: Towing the Bismarck (was Re: Prinz Eugen) , Ian/Michelle Busch <bus...@cts.com> wrote:
> On 12 Jun 1997 17:18:22 +0100, a...@aber.ac.uk (A R BREEN) wrote:
>
> >In article <339F68...@ix.netcom.com>, <gilb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>Also, what kind of fighter support could the British carriers provide?
> >>Was it junky biplane stuff, or was it Hurricanes or Spitfires?
> >
> >The FAA had no biplane fighters embarked aboard the big carriers by 1941. At
> >a guess the fighters would have been Fulmars, maybe Skuas (which had a
> >fairly good record against the Ju88 in Norway), possibly early Marlets
> >(Wildcats), maybe some Sea Hurricanes. Depended on the ship. More than
> >enough to break up any extreme-range strike.
> >
> When Ark Royal was sunk (not long after), her fighter complement was
> Fulmars. Being that a Martlet or Sea Hurricane would be (I have to
> believe) considered an upgrade to a Fulmar, I would guess that Ark had
> Fulmars aboard during Bismark. I also can't imagine Sea Gladiators or
> even Skuas on board the Ark if Fulmars are available at that point
> (Ark being deployed in the Med most of the time). Also, for what its
> worth, I didn't think the FAA had started receiving Martlets yet at
> this point in the war (or at least not many) -- how about Brewster
> Buffalos?
>
I'll have to look at some sources as to what RN carrier carried what
aircraft then, the FAA squadrons were not uniformly equipped with the
same airframe for the same mission. Not all fighter squadrons had
Martlets at one time. The Buffalo was right out. The RN got some of
the stranded French aircraft for tests. They went so far as to try
arrested landings, at sea using a hook attached to the tail wheel. The
naval equipment was removed from all export Buffalos. The export aircraft
theat were available just didn't work out in tests and thus ended up in
S.E. Asia with the RAF.
Among other things the British didn't like the single piece wing,
non-automatic engine controls (mixture and blower). The lack of a
hook and the expected availability of Martlets killed the idea.
There is a very interesting article by Malcolm LeCompt in AAHS Journal
about what might have happened if the Buffalo had actually been ordered
and suitrably equipped for RN carrier ops. The early F2As had a decent
rate of climb and excellent range. Employed early enough with training
etc. the Buffalo might be remembered differently.
> P.S. I remember reading something somewhere about aircraft from the
> Ark fighting off German attacks (not severe) at the time Bismark went
> down.
Ben
scha...@notis.nospam*.com
Gary J. Mac Donald
(jlos...@comp.uark.edu) writes:
> In article <339e906a...@gollum.kingston.net> p...@adan.kingston.net
> (Peter Skelton) writes:
>> db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>>
>> Victorious was still around. Two big ships towing at ten knots would
> make a
>> really good target. The action was in May at around 47(?) north, so
> there
>> would be lots of daylight.
>
> Well there would have been several hours (10 or so ) of dark before a
> third attack from Ark Royal (not Victorious) could have been launched,
> this is 100nm at ten knots, does this put Bismarck under cover of planes
> from France?
Probably. All available aircraft were being mustered to go out and cover
Bismark, and they could operate out to 500-600 miles, although bomb loads
were reduced. They probably did not have torpedos available at that time
in the war.
>> (The British had at least two cruisers and a battlecruiser near enough
> to
>> interfere during the night, if it had been necessary.)
> And the destroyers, the Sheffield was shadowing the Bismark and would
> probably be able to continue shadowing. However if Eugen was there she
> might take it on herself to do something about Sheffield before passing
> the tow.
Sheffied and Vian's tribals, plus perhaps some "F" destroyers form Force
H, would have been more than Eugen could handle and still do anything to
save Bismark.
GaryJ
--
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ar075
To build a community we must be able to communicate freely.
Gary J. Mac Donald
(gilb...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>> Various folks wrote:
>>
>> >_Very_ roughly, the Bismarck was sunk about as far from Brest as is
>> >Douro in Portugal. Looking at maps, it looks just that bit too far for
>> >bomber operations by the Luftwaffe. They would have been flying out,
>> >loaded, with the wind against them, which ouldn't help.
>>
>> Victorious was still around. Two big ships towing at ten knots would make a
>> really good target. The action was in May at around 47(?) north, so there
>> would be lots of daylight.
>>
> IMHO too much is made of the advantages of getting the Bismarck within
> range of the Brest based Luftwaffe. The German interservice cooperation
> between Navy and Air force was really bad. At extreme range, I don't
> think the Royal Navy would be greatly bothered by the few German planes
> that might have shown up. The Germans could bomb single merchantmen
> with some success, but warships are another story. Even during the
> Crete evacuation, the Royal Navy ships that sank usually ONLY sank when
> they ran out of AA ammo. Only then could the Germans really drive home
> their attacks. It would not be likely that the few planes flying from
> Brest would have enough loiter time to deplete the British AA ammo.
Well, they did sink a Tribal on the way home, IIRC. And they did sink RN
ships that were not out of AA ammo, including off Crete. However they
usually did it with Ju-87s, which were not available to help Bismark and
did not have the range.
But the RN would have hung in in the face of the wing-sized attacks that
would have been the most they would have had to face.
> At this stage of the war, did the Germans have any heavy anti-shipping
> capability? Did they have anything more dangerous then Ju-88A's at long
> range? When did they develop the bomb used to sink Roma?
Ju-88s and iron bombs.
> Also, what kind of fighter support could the British carriers provide?
> Was it junky biplane stuff, or was it Hurricanes or Spitfires?
I think Victorious had broken off, but if not, she had embarked the 9
Swordfish that had made the earlier stike, and 6 Fulmars. (She was on a
shakedown cruise, and had aircraft for delivery to Takoradi, IIRC.)
the Ark had at least about 15 Fulmars, and may have had Sea Hurricanes.
Jay Martino
A couple of things need to be considered. First: the rudder issue had
nothing to do with the decision to detach PE. Second: the conditions
were too poor to use a diver to blow the rudder (even if PE hadn't
been ther to tow, it would have been an improvement). An attempt to
tow Bismarck to Brest would likely have resulted in the loss of both
Bismarck and PE.
A R BREEN
In article <866067...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>,
David G. Bell <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Vian was making torpedo attacks with his destroyer flotilla that night.
>
>Even if Prinz Eugen had been there, Bismarck was likely finished.
Does anyone know if any RN submarines were being targeted onto Bismarck?
I believe that the big 'river' class fleet subs (Mersey, Thames, Severn)
were operating out of Gibralter at the time, which would probably have
put them out of range, even with their high surface speed, but some of
the O and P boats were certainly in home waters.
As it was known that Bismarck was making for Brest, were tere any attempts
to put submarines in her way?
gilb...@ix.netcom.com
> >between Navy and Air force was really bad.
>
> tend to think a Panzer Division would have set sail if they thought
> they could help out.
Quite true, but there was a real lack of mission experience and
capability in the Luftwaffe for long range maritime strike missions.
The lack of cooperation meant other problems too. Could a Luftwaffe
plane even talk directly with a U-boat or Navy ship? Was useful armor
piercing ordinance even available at short notice, or air launched
torpedoes? (I hate to give this encouragement to the BB crowd...) IIRC
at this time the major antishipping system being used in the Med was the
JU-87 Stuka, which wouldn't be useful at the long range out to the
Bismarck.
John Gilbert
'If you don't build it, they won't come!'
Gary J. Mac Donald
Ian/Michelle Busch (bus...@cts.com) writes:
> One critical consideration though, had to have been fuel. Both Rodney
> and KGV (as I understand) were running on fumes at the time, with
> barely enuf to get back to Portsmouth (unrep within spitting distance
> of France being a less than keen idea).
Remember that both had been steaming at full speed for most of the
previous couple of days, and that empties the bunkers.
Gary J. Mac Donald
Ian/Michelle Busch (bus...@cts.com) writes:
> P.S. Also Renown had lotsa more deck armor than Hood -- I wouldn't
> fear a repeat of the Denmark Straits.
>
> P.P.S. Since Rodney claimed that torp hit at fairly long range, were
> the seas really that bad by morning?
Anybody have stats on these two points? Renown had been modernized, but I
didn't think her deck armour was any better than Hood's.
John Canning
A R BREEN (a...@aber.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <339D04...@iamerica.net>, TMO/TX <swr...@iamerica.net> wrote:
: >Michel Eyckmans (MCE) wrote:
: >Best possible scenario, five knots or so on a snakey, sinuous course and
: >not very effective.
: >
: >Likely scenario, "no bueno por chit!".
: >--
: Worst scenario: Prinz Eugen gets a cable around a screw (or a rudder!)
: and then they see the control tower of _Rodney_ on the horizon....
: You _might_ save a battlewagon.
: OTOH there's a very good chance of losing a big cruiser too.
: Nasty choice....
Didn't the Germans have some large warships in Brest already? Where any in good
enough shape to go out and meet Bismarck and Prinz Eugen (assuming they were kept
together)?
John Canning
Chris Manteuffel
Acroynms?). Every carrier had a differant air wing, with differnat planes.
No just numbers, but sometimes even no common planes between wings. Why
was that? Any reason? Harried staff, or logic?
Chris Manteuffel
Peter Skelton
ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Gary J. Mac Donald) wrote:
>
> (gilb...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>>> Various folks wrote:
>> The Germans could bomb single merchantmen
>> with some success, but warships are another story. Even during the
>> Crete evacuation, the Royal Navy ships that sank usually ONLY sank when
>> they ran out of AA ammo. Only then could the Germans really drive home
>> their attacks. It would not be likely that the few planes flying from
>> Brest would have enough loiter time to deplete the British AA ammo.
>
>Well, they did sink a Tribal on the way home, IIRC. And they did sink RN
>ships that were not out of AA ammo, including off Crete. However they
>usually did it with Ju-87s, which were not available to help Bismark and
>did not have the range.
<snips before and after>
British fleet destroyers were relatively easy meat for aircraft, but some
of the other RN ships were something else.
During the 1920's the British developed a very effective 4" DP mount. This
was used in various adaptations as secondary armament on the county (and
other) cruisers, fitted to older BB's for AA, and used as main armament on
some sloops and the hunt destroyers.
When coupled with decent ammunition supply arrrangements and good directors
it was a very effective heavy AA outfit. Very few ships equipped in this
way were damaged or sunk by aircraft while they still had ammunition.
(Warspite IIRC had used all the available AA and SAP and was using practice
ammunition.)
By the end of the war the gun lacked both throw weight and range for heavy
AA. (Its twenty-five pound projectile was less than half that of the US 5"
or the British 4.5.)
British fleet destroyers were fitted with four single 4.7" LA guns and a
single 3" HA mount for heavy AA. Inadequate is a charitable description of
this outfit. The pre-war tribals were originally built with four twin 4.7
LA turrets. During the war X turret was removed from them and a 4" DP twin
put in its place. This was an improvement but it could only engage a
single aircraft.
Jay Martino
jlos...@comp.uark.edu wrote:
>Well there would have been several hours (10 or so ) of dark before a
>third attack from Ark Royal (not Victorious) could have been launched,
>this is 100nm at ten knots, does this put Bismarck under cover of planes
>from France?
Why not Victorious? She was in the neigbourhood, having launched at
least one successful torpedo strike on Bismarck (the one that opened
the Prince of Wales' wound and flooded a boiler room). I also doubt
that 10 knots would have made a dif, since Bismarck was capable of 20,
and I don't see how being slower, under tow, will change her tendency
to turn in the wrong direction.
>And the destroyers, the Sheffield was shadowing the Bismark and would
>probably be able to continue shadowing. However if Eugen was there she
>might take it on herself to do something about Sheffield before passing
>the tow.
PE might have made a difference when Vian's destroyers were attacking
through the night, but would probably have been just another target
had she been shackled to Bismarck.
Jay Martino
jlos...@comp.uark.edu wrote:
>Yes, but being draged this would not be as much of a problem as sailing
>with a jammed rudder alone. The line of force is in the direction you are
>being pulled, the rudder an only apply a torque, no external force. The
>ship would turn until the torque from the rudder was compensated for by
>the angle of the two and a balance was reached. I don't know what the
>best speed would have been but you would be able to move, in the correct
>direction.
But what effect would a 50,000-ton displacement tow have on the much
smaller PE? I would think that the constant corrections for having her
stern dragged around would negate any possible speed. Bismarck's
design was such that her engines couldn't compensate for a jammed
rudder (something most warships have taken into account, before and
since), so I fail to see how applying the forward motion from a source
other than her own engines will make a difference.
> I would hope the Bismarcks own engins could help as well.
The design made that unlikely.
Sandy McClearn
TMO/TX wrote:
> PE can tow, first in a great arc to pull Bismarck's head around to an
> easterly heading, then toward France, working up to 8-10kts over time,
> while the cable plays havoc with her fantail, ripping out assorted deck
> fittings, etc (and doing even greater potential damage) to a ship not
> designed for towing. The chafing gear for hauling about ponderous BBs
> is not stowed abaft most ship's spud lockers, and in all honesty the
> only suitable anchoring point may have been to construct some sort of
> bridle around the after barbette.
> Bismarck's engines not only wouldn't help; they would put the ships in > a world of hurt.
Instead of towing Bismark, would it have been possibly for PE to lie
astern of Bismark, with a line between the two, so that PE could merely
compensate for the pull of Bismark's stuck rudder? Still unwieldy, but
better than towing, and you could better get away with using Bismark's
own engines. Just a thought.
--
CDN Navy, Fixed Link [/] http://www.tuns.ca/~mccleaae/ ____.____ %
_) [\] | ...__ | _ c[@@]O=+/
<Sandy McClearn> __O_|_| \_ | [### \ |-$_______8__ " `
[*|*| \___ -_|-[ _\ | |____|_/ ]
|\........-@.....[........|.|.].[....|.|H|:.|........]............____|
\~ 330 mccl...@newton.ccs.tuns.ca |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Resistance is futile. You will be DUPed" - Dalhousie of Borg
Gary J. Mac Donald
Chris Manteuffel (foxb...@aol.com) writes:
> Thats something that always puzzeld me about the FAA in WWII(Hows that for
> Acroynms?). Every carrier had a differant air wing, with differnat planes.
> No just numbers, but sometimes even no common planes between wings. Why
> was that? Any reason? Harried staff, or logic?
I think most of the reason was that they were always loking for a better
fighter, so it depended on when the wing was fitted out and when the ship
left home (since replacements were not often available on Med stations).
They began with Gladiators and Skuas, moved to Fulmars, then experimented
with Sea Hurricanes, then moved to them, then bought Mrtlets (Wildcats)
and then Seafires, and so on.
TMO/TX
Sandy McClearn wrote:
>
> TMO/TX wrote:
>
> > PE can tow, first in a great arc to pull Bismarck's head around to an
> > easterly heading, then toward France, working up to 8-10kts over time,
> > while the cable plays havoc with her fantail, ripping out assorted deck
> > fittings, etc (and doing even greater potential damage) to a ship not
> > designed for towing. The chafing gear for hauling about ponderous BBs
> > is not stowed abaft most ship's spud lockers, and in all honesty the
> > only suitable anchoring point may have been to construct some sort of
> > bridle around the after barbette.
>
> > Bismarck's engines not only wouldn't help; they would put the ships in > a world of hurt.
>
> Instead of towing Bismark, would it have been possibly for PE to lie
> astern of Bismark, with a line between the two, so that PE could merely
> compensate for the pull of Bismark's stuck rudder? Still unwieldy, but
> better than towing, and you could better get away with using Bismark's
> own engines. Just a thought.
>
> --
a similar drill used when moving offshore oil rigs by tug, with a
trailing tug or powered barge used to offset wind conditions. While it
might have been helpful in Bismarck's state, figuring out the
combination of angle off base course, RPM and rudder settings for the PE
would have required a lot of trial and error (and time, an ingredient
the British would likely have attempted to curtail or interrupt).
IMHO & BOMEX, all of the debate over air cover, fuel states, etc. is
academic. With under best conditions an SOA of 4-5kts, the British
could have damn near brought the Yangste Patrol on to the scene.
Additionally, with their dander up and national pride on the line, I
would envision "Forlorn Hope", Last Resort tactics a la Gloworm(sp?)
long before a crippled Bismarck was able to come under any realistic
level of air cover in the Bay of Biscay.
Jay Martino
Chris Manteuffel <foxb...@aol.com> wrote:
>Thats something that always puzzeld me about the FAA in WWII(Hows that for
>Acroynms?). Every carrier had a differant air wing, with differnat planes.
>No just numbers, but sometimes even no common planes between wings. Why
>was that? Any reason? Harried staff, or logic?
Production. The RAF had a wristlock on aircraft production, and the
FAA played second fiddle. Often they weren't even able to completely
fill out the air complements of the larger carriers. I don't think Ark
Royal carried a full wing at any time during her war service (not
counting RAF 'planes ferried). They ended up making due with what they
could get.
Ian/Michelle Busch
On Sun, 15 Jun 1997 02:40:11 GMT, mjmartino@igs*.net (Jay Martino)
wrote:
>jlos...@comp.uark.edu wrote:
>Why not Victorious? She was in the neigbourhood, having launched at
>least one successful torpedo strike on Bismarck (the one that opened
>the Prince of Wales' wound and flooded a boiler room). I also doubt
Victorious had already started heading for port substantially before
Bismarks final engagement. Also, her aircrews were inexperienced (not
so for Ark's) and would have had much more difficulty with long range
bad weather flying. Plus, she had a smaller air group than Ark
anyway.
>that 10 knots would have made a dif, since Bismarck was capable of 20,
>and I don't see how being slower, under tow, will change her tendency
>to turn in the wrong direction.
She would try to turn the wrong way, but essentially be towed at some
angle off the "forward" direction. Bismark would have been "side
slipping" at some angle probably 5-10 degrees off of forward. In
fact, if done correctly, the PE should not be heading for Brest, but
for some point either north or south of it.
>PE might have made a difference when Vian's destroyers were attacking
>through the night, but would probably have been just another target
>had she been shackled to Bismarck.
Tough to say what the difference would have been. Despite the gallant
actions of the destroyer crews, the accomplished exactly nothing in
terms of physical damage (although tiring out the Bismarks gun crews
with round-the-clock action stations probably did an incredible amount
to shorted the coup-de-grace). PE might possibly have sunk a couple
if "unshackled." If "shackled" _successfully_ she would likely have
been a great help in terms of improving Bismark's handling.
Ian/Michelle Busch
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 23:37:28 -0700, gilb...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Could a Luftwaffe
>plane even talk directly with a U-boat or Navy ship? Was useful armor
>piercing ordinance even available at short notice, or air launched
>torpedoes?
Very good point. However, it would not have taken too much to avoid
the potential fratricide problem. All Goering's boys would have to
know is "Don't shoot at anything with 4 turrets." The Brit cruisers
would have been safe, but they weren't the linchpin at this point
anyway.
> IIRC
I'll ask an Internet novice question here: what does IIRC stand for?
Was HE 111 w/ torpedoes available? I would guess that they might have
had the range/danger combination.
Ian/Michelle Busch
On 13 Jun 1997 22:28:23 GMT, ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Gary J. Mac
Donald) wrote:
>> P.S. Also Renown had lotsa more deck armor than Hood -- I wouldn't
>> fear a repeat of the Denmark Straits.
>Anybody have stats on these two points? Renown had been modernized, but I
>didn't think her deck armour was any better than Hood's.
>
Deck armor over magazines:
Hood: 1" upper deck + 3" over magazines on Main Deck
(source: Janes)
Renown: "Understood that protection was considerably increased during
1936-1939 reconstruction"
Repulse (same as Renown before refit):
1.5" upper deck + 3" main deck
(source: Janes)
Renown: 6.5 inch decks (decreases to 4.5" in places).
source: British Warships of the Second World War
Admittedly, 15" shells can pierce 6.5 inch deck at high angles, but
weather being what it was, and with German crews as tired as they
were, range would probably have been fairly close (and angle low)
before Renown would start receiving hits.
>>
>> P.P.S. Since Rodney claimed that torp hit at fairly long range, were
>> the seas really that bad by morning?
>
Curious myself on this one. . .
kif
Ian/Michelle Busch (bus...@cts.com) wrote:
: On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 23:37:28 -0700, gilb...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: >Could a Luftwaffe
: >plane even talk directly with a U-boat or Navy ship? Was useful armor
: >piercing ordinance even available at short notice, or air launched
: >torpedoes?
: Very good point. However, it would not have taken too much to avoid
: the potential fratricide problem. All Goering's boys would have to
: know is "Don't shoot at anything with 4 turrets." The Brit cruisers
: would have been safe, but they weren't the linchpin at this point
: anyway.
The Bismarck had two large swastikas painted on her deck, one near the bow
and the other near the stern. I believe, however, that they had been
covered to make detection/identification by enemy planes more difficult.
-stavros
--
- K I F -
finger sfot...@dcsun1.comp.brad.ac.uk for WWW info and PGP key
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
God is real, unless declared as an integer
Gary J. Mac Donald
Ian/Michelle Busch (bus...@cts.com) writes:
> I'll ask an Internet novice question here: what does IIRC stand for?
If I Recall Correctly
> Was HE 111 w/ torpedoes available? I would guess that they might have
> had the range/danger combination.
I do not imagine that torpedos or He 111s were available in France at
this time. In fact, I don't know if they had even mated torps to the
He's in early 1941.
Jay Martino
bus...@cts.com (Ian/Michelle Busch) wrote:
>She would try to turn the wrong way, but essentially be towed at some
>angle off the "forward" direction. Bismark would have been "side
>slipping" at some angle probably 5-10 degrees off of forward. In
>fact, if done correctly, the PE should not be heading for Brest, but
>for some point either north or south of it.
However _any_ attempt at maneouvre would have been difficult (I'm
being generous) for both ships, and both would be going considerably
slower than they were able, making them both vulnerable to air and
destroyer attack.
>Tough to say what the difference would have been. Despite the gallant
>actions of the destroyer crews, the accomplished exactly nothing in
>terms of physical damage (although tiring out the Bismarks gun crews
>with round-the-clock action stations probably did an incredible amount
>to shorted the coup-de-grace). PE might possibly have sunk a couple
>if "unshackled." If "shackled" _successfully_ she would likely have
>been a great help in terms of improving Bismark's handling.
Granted the destroyers accomplished little other than keeping the crew
at action stations (significant in the end, I think), but they were
dealing with a ship still capable of a decent turn of speed. The added
handling of PE _might_ have made the destroyers' job more difficult,
but the lower speed (combined with still poor handling) could well
have made the difference between a successful torpedo run or not. Of
course as soon as we invoke all these "what ifs", any theory has a
certain amount of validity. What would have happend the next morning
when Rodney and KGV engaged?
Bernhard D Rohrer
In message <33a34e93...@news.igs.net> - mjmartino@igs*.net (Jay Martino)
writes:
:> Bismarck's
:>design was such that her engines couldn't compensate for a jammed
:>rudder (something most warships have taken into account, before and
:>since), so I fail to see how applying the forward motion from a source
:>other than her own engines will make a difference.
:>
:>> I would hope the Bismarcks own engins could help as well.
:>
:>The design made that unlikely.
how so? I'm really curious, this is no flame!
valete
*******************************
Bernhard Rohrer, TeamOS/2
Heilbronn, Germany
br...@remove.this.unterland.de
Teamers do it in protected mode
*******************************
Jay Martino
n...@here.de (Bernhard D Rohrer) wrote:
>:>> I would hope the Bismarcks own engins could help as well.
>:>
>:>The design made that unlikely.
>
>how so? I'm really curious, this is no flame!
Her (his?) design was such that the engines had trouble compensating
for rudder problems. Most ships are able to steer with engines alone,
Bismarck had problems with that. It was identified during workups, and
basically Lindemann's worst nightmare came true (Murphy's Law).
Ken Young
In article <5o4jju$d...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> I do not imagine that torpedos or He 111s were available in France at
> this time. In fact, I don't know if they had even mated torps to the
> He's in early 1941.
>
> GaryJ
All that was available at the start of the war was the HE 115 seaplane
with the slow F5 torpedo. Serious development of torpedo attack did not
start until late 1941.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
With Capitalism; man exploits man
With Socialism; the reverse occurs
Thomas Fuller
In article <865967...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>,
db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>In article <5njq7q$1...@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>
> sfot...@comp.brad.ac.uk "kif" writes:
>
>> peter...@stmarys.ca wrote:
>> : On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 00:39:30 -0700, TMO/TX <swr...@iamerica.net>
>> : wrote:
>>
>> : >Michel Eyckmans (MCE) wrote:
>> : >>
>> : >> Suppose Bismarck and Prinz Eugen would still have been together
>> : >> at the moment of Bismarck's fatal rudder damage. Could Prinz Eugen
>> : >> have "towed" her to (relative) safety?
>>
>> : Could the Prinz Eugen potentially have blown the stuck rudders off of
>> : the Bismarck and been able to tow it at lets say 8-10 knots?
>>
>>
>> Please forgive my uneducated hypothesis, but IIRC the Bismarck was
>> just outside the range of the Luftwaffe (Brest). Would the German High
Of course, Prinz Eugen could have been useful in towing Bismarck, but the most
valuable help would have been during the attack in which the battleship was
crippled. Had the Prinz been in company with Bismarck, the British would have
had to face the flak batteries of two ships instead of one, and it is possible that
the attack might not have succeeded, particularly if Prinz was deployed behind
Bismarck (bearing in mind that the successful hit came from a Swordfish which
approached from well abaft the beam and managed to get into strke range unnoticed
until too late). It might also be a consideration to remember the Ark Royal's
available force was too small to attack both ships and since Bismarck would have been
the main target, the Prinz could have contributed considerably to the battleship's
defence.
thomas fuller, MA, BA
Thomas Fuller
In article <33A23C...@ix.netcom.com>, gilb...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Ian/Michelle Busch wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:21:16 -0700, gilb...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> >between Navy and Air force was really bad.
>>
>> tend to think a Panzer Division would have set sail if they thought
>> they could help out.
>
>Quite true, but there was a real lack of mission experience and
>capability in the Luftwaffe for long range maritime strike missions.
>plane even talk directly with a U-boat or Navy ship? Was useful armor
>piercing ordinance even available at short notice, or air launched
>at this time the major antishipping system being used in the Med was the
>JU-87 Stuka, which wouldn't be useful at the long range out to the
>Bismarck.
in getting the Bismarck home safely. Had she reached the outer limits of land based
Ju-88s and HE 111s, they would have posed at least a risk to the British. Both could
carry armour piercing as well as HE bombs of sufficient size to pierce the armour deck
of a battleship, and both types were capable of operating as torpedo bombers (two
torpedos each according to airplane expert William Green). In point of fact, German
bombers at the limit of their endurance did find elements of the returning British force
on 27 May, and sank the destroyer Mashona en route to port. This would seem to prove
British fears at least partly justified. I suggest as well, that British fears
were not confined to the loss of ships--a heavily damaged ship which would be out
of service for some time would be one less available for operations at a critical
point in the war, particularly if Bismarck reached the relative safety of the
Luftwaffe's air umbrella.
Thomas Fuller, MA.BA.
thomas...@nau.edu
Peter Anderson
I think that the British would be the first to admit that the torpedo
damage to Bismarck,s rudder was nothing mor than an extremely fortunate
fluke.Indeed this is referred to in a couple of authorative books I have
read.
A R BREEN
In article <01bc84cf$56747260$312c...@pga.iol.ie>,
exactly such flukes. The destruction of Hood was a fluke - at that
range her belt and deck were immume to all but a _very_ unlikely
hit (under the belt seems most likely). Bismarck's survival
at Denmark Strait was also a fluke - a 14" round from PoW penetrated
her side below her belt but failed to detonate: if it had (s)he'd
probably gone as Hood went. Norfolk's hit on Bismarck's fire
control in the final action was lucky (what were the odds on Norfolk
doing the same thing 2 years later to Scharnhorst?) - the action
would have gone the same way but Rodney and KG5 would have had a
harder fight and might have taken significant damage.
Later on in the war an AP bomb from a Barracuda penetrated Tirpitz'
deck armour to her magazines, but failed to detonate (the only
penetrating hit in that attack and the only one which failed to go
off) - that would have sunk her almost a yar before the Lancasters
did. The list goes on...
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
immane mittam (For non-latiners: "I have a catapult. Give me all the
money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head."(Michael Hinz)
Andy Breen, Solar Physics Group, Aberystwyth, a...@aber.ac.uk
Bernhard D Rohrer
In message <33aaa8b3...@news.igs.net> - mjmartino@igs*.net (Jay Martino)
writes:
:>Her (his?) design was such that the engines had trouble compensating
:>for rudder problems. Most ships are able to steer with engines alone,
:>Bismarck had problems with that. It was identified during workups, and
:>basically Lindemann's worst nightmare came true (Murphy's Law).
That much I gathered, but *why* couldn't she? This absolutely beats my
imagination, so please help improve it!
Thanks!
gilb...@ix.netcom.com
Bernhard D Rohrer wrote:
>
> In message <33aaa8b3...@news.igs.net> - mjmartino@igs*.net (Jay Martino)
> writes:
>
> :>Her (his?) design was such that the engines had trouble compensating
> :>for rudder problems. Most ships are able to steer with engines alone,
> :>Bismarck had problems with that. It was identified during workups, and
> :>basically Lindemann's worst nightmare came true (Murphy's Law).
>
> That much I gathered, but *why* couldn't she? This absolutely beats my
> imagination, so please help improve it!
>
a big big ship? This is a total guess, but it might not have put much
torque into the Bismarck even if only one side of screws were used.
John Gilbert
'Too much imagination, not enough references'
Jay Martino
"Peter Anderson" <p...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
> I think that the British would be the first to admit that the torpedo
>damage to Bismarck,s rudder was nothing mor than an extremely fortunate
>fluke.Indeed this is referred to in a couple of authorative books I have
>read.
>
True, although there was definite intent to attempt to disable her,
and the Swordfish that launched the fateful torpedo was approaching
from the stern, and was not the only one to do so. I think they could
well have had intent to damage the rudders or the screws. As it was,
it worked far better than anyone could have expected.
SUBWOOD
It was revealed during her trials in the Baltic that Bismarck could NOT
maintain a straight course on her propellers alone. This was due in part
to her triple screw design. She had only one screw one either side of the
centerline, unlike U.S. and other designs with four screws, which placed
two screws on either side of the centerline. I'm sure some of the
engineers out there can add plenty more!
Michel Eyckmans (MCE)
Being an engineer (albeit it not a naval one, just one with some naval
background), this hits me as weird. In fact, as soon as I read the word
`triple' I thought: either this information is incorrect (sorry can't
check right now), or the guys that made this design descision should
sort of have been taken out and shot. Slowly, that is. And *before*
the sea trials. The problem looks so predictable...
OTOH, Bismarck also suffered from unprotected vital cabling, so why
not expect some more similar problems... :-)
Gee, one would assume that when designing a BB people would plan in
all sorts of damage occurring at the most inconvenient moments... :-)
MCE
--
==========================================================================
M. Eyckmans (MCE) Code of the Geeks v3.1 m...@tornado.be
GCS d+ s++:-- a31 C+++$ UHLUASO+++$ P+ L+++ E--- W++ N+++ !o K w--- !O M--
V-- PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP- t--- !5 !X R-- tv- b+ DI++ D-- G++ e+++ h+(*) !r y?
==========================================================================
Mark Brandt, Ph.D.
> Being an engineer (albeit it not a naval one, just one with some naval
> background), this hits me as weird. In fact, as soon as I read the word
> `triple' I thought: either this information is incorrect (sorry can't
> check right now), or the guys that made this design descision should
> sort of have been taken out and shot.
Bismarck did have triple screws. I have not seen any clear explanation for
why, especially since the German WWI battleships and battlecruisers had
four.
On the other hand, Prince of Wales had four; it was hit by a Japanese
aerial torpedo or two and found itself unable to maneuver effectively also.
So having four screws does not necessarily mean continued maneuverability
following damage to the stern.
Slowly, that is. And *before*
> the sea trials. The problem looks so predictable...
>
> OTOH, Bismarck also suffered from unprotected vital cabling, so why
> not expect some more similar problems... :-)
>
> Gee, one would assume that when designing a BB people would plan in
> all sorts of damage occurring at the most inconvenient moments... :-)
Very funny. :-)
The problem is that *all* battleships have some vital structural features
outside the armor (hence the term "all-or-nothing"). The German engineers
made design decisions that seemed sound at the time (IIRC, the choice on
the cabling was either run the cables above the armored deck, or have holes
in the armor so that *part* of the routing was below deck; they opted for
armor with fewer holes).
Building a ship that will actually float requires tradeoffs. It is often
difficult to tell which design decisions are the best ones until after the
fact. In some ships the design flaws were pointed out as a result of battle
damage; in other ships, design flaws may have existed but were not noticed
due to lack of enemy action.
--
Mark Brandt, Ph.D.
My opinions are my own, but I tend to give them away to anyone who fails to
flee fast enough.
Jay Martino
ma...@indy-lv.biomol.uci.edu (Mark Brandt, Ph.D.) wrote:
>On the other hand, Prince of Wales had four; it was hit by a Japanese
>aerial torpedo or two and found itself unable to maneuver effectively also.
>So having four screws does not necessarily mean continued maneuverability
>following damage to the stern.
Going from memory, which is always risky: Prince of Wales became
uncontrollable because of total loss of electrical power, not because
of the loss of one screw. She didn't recieve a hit to the rudders,
and, except for flooding and the power loss, could well have come back
under control. Bismarck's steering flaw was unique, I think, and
Murphy being a sadist, especially in war, the result was inevitable.
Ken Young
In article <33b9c26c...@news.igs.net>, mjmartino@igs*.net (Jay
Martino) wrote:
> True, although there was definite intent to attempt to disable her,
> and the Swordfish that launched the fateful torpedo was approaching
> from the stern, and was not the only one to do so. I think they could
> well have had intent to damage the rudders or the screws. As it was,
> it worked far better than anyone could have expected.
Standard tactics for airborne torpedo attack was to approach the bow or
the stern. First it minimised the number of guns able to shoot at you,
second any attempt to turn away from the attack exposed a greater target
area, third against a target moving at high speed it reduced the need to
estimate deflection and finally passive torpedo protection was weakest at
the bow and the stern.
Tim
>In article <33b9c26c...@news.igs.net>, mjmartino@igs*.net (Jay
>Martino) wrote:
>
>> True, although there was definite intent to attempt to disable her,
>> and the Swordfish that launched the fateful torpedo was approaching
>> from the stern, and was not the only one to do so. I think they could
>> well have had intent to damage the rudders or the screws. As it was,
>> it worked far better than anyone could have expected.
> Standard tactics for airborne torpedo attack was to approach the bow or
>the stern. First it minimised the number of guns able to shoot at you,
>second any attempt to turn away from the attack exposed a greater target
>area, third against a target moving at high speed it reduced the need to
>estimate deflection and finally passive torpedo protection was weakest at
>the bow and the stern.
>
>Ken Young
I read that the Swordfish attacked singly or in small groups in order
to force the Bismark to make radical course changes. These course
changes scrubbed off so much speed that the Bismark was nearly stopped
when the last aircraft attacked. The last few planes concentrated on
the stern to try and get a crippling hit, which they did.
I don't remember which book I read it in, I can try and look it up if
need be.